A silly, stupid bargain

[Gordon Gray]

Bernard,

That's was my exact justification for doing the mod and purchasing the mat. Maximize sonic return on investment.

As an aside, I want to thank almost everyone for their respectful comments. I checked out the BS chatter / noise regarding the mat, on the audiogon site. Maybe 30 to 40% of the posts came from people who criticized / slammed the product without even hearing it.

That's why I choose to post on this site, almost exclusively.

Gordon

 

[Rich]

Well Gordon, I'm not going to argue about the sonic effectiveness of this tweak because I haven't tried it. I tend to be of the opinion that improvements heard from many such tweaks are psychosomatic (ie, placebo effect), but I also understand that some can be effective for truly scientific reasons. But I will say this: the price seems inordinately high for what it is. I can't imagine it costs more than a few dollars to produce this disc, yet it sells for $200? That sets off my "BS" button right away.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Whatever my friend.

I'm only sharing what I've heard.

If you think it's BS, that's fine with me.

Best,

Gordon

PS: I've swapped back and forth in excess of ten times. It ain't placebo.

 

[marck]

Just to backup Gordon's findings, I currently use the prior version and can definitely say that it is a must have.

Over the years I have done numerous demos both with fellow Hifi friends and other non Hifi people and each time they opt for the disc.

It is one of those things, hard to believe until you try it for yourself.

Gordon, out of curiosity how much better would you say the new disc is over the original?

Thanks
M.

 

[tsv_1]

Whatever my friend.

I'm only sharing what I've heard.

If you think it's BS, that's fine with me.

Best,

Gordon

PS: I've swapped back and forth in excess of ten times. It ain't placebo.

Hi Gordon,

It seems to me that this would be pretty easily verified in the digital domain (with the right tool). Choose a song you feel is enhanced with this mat. Then simply play the song (sans mat) and capture the digital output to a file. Then replay the same song (mit mat), and capture the digital output to a second file. Run a compare of the two files and note the deltas. Perhaps to increase statistical significance, capture several files with and without and look for similar deltas... if you begin to see a with/without pattern, then we know the mat is indeed impacting the datastream (i.e. presumably decreasing bit errors).

I would think the mat manufacturer would have done a similar analysis to help prove the effectiveness of their product... though I found no such discussion on Marigo's website.

On the other hand, as is so often the case, we can always choose to simply enjoy what we believe to be an enhancement regardless of any supporting data (or lack thereof).

Bottom line, if you're enjoying the mat, that's awesome. Now if you could just trade those clunky MBLs in for some decent CLXs, all would be right with the world (I kid, I kid)

 

[User211]

Foo Man Chew, some might say

Not surfice for Gordon to go all dotty, now he's gone all matty!!!

Decent CLX's Todd? Unobtanium, methinks. Maybe when they come up with the triple force ESL bass driver that gets you to 25 Hz we'll all fall for them

All joking aside, Todd is right, really.

All a bit irrelevant to me, as I rip all my stuff these days. But hey - maybe a ripped CD using the mat is better still? Somehow, I doubt it.

 

[tsv_1]

maybe a ripped CD using the mat is better still? Somehow, I doubt it.

I have to think the answer would be yes... if the mat descreases BER, then wouldn't you want all your ripped files to have the same low BER?

That said, I'm off to the shops as it's the wife's 50th bday tomorrow and I need to find a good vaccuum cleaner

 

[Rich]

Whatever my friend.

I'm only sharing what I've heard.

If you think it's BS, that's fine with me.

Best,

Gordon

PS: I've swapped back and forth in excess of ten times. It ain't placebo.

The placebo effect is strong, so saying you have swapped it ten times doesn't really mean anything. If the difference is as dramatic as you say, you should be able to pick out the disc every time in a blind test. Have someone else randomly play a cd with the disc and without. Have them do it each way ten or twenty times and after listening for as long as you need each time, decide whether you hear the effect of the disc or not. If you get it right more than 50% of the time, I will be impressed.

But even though you say this disc produces dramatic differences in the sound, I would imagine you would still hesitate to perform this test, eschewing objective evidence for your own subjective impressions. Nothing wrong with that, as it's only your money that is being spent. But just realize that the placebo effect is a lot stronger than you think and you may very well be fooling yourself. An interesting read: The Power of the Placebo Effect in Audio & Beyond

At any rate, don't misunderstand my post. I am really not commenting on the effectiveness of this tweak, because I haven't used it or performed any objective testing with it. I am simply saying that Marigo charges a rather high premium for his products, with no indication that the cost is justified by the cost of production or any scientific proof of effectiveness. He does the same thing with his cables and component feet: exorbitant prices, but no discussion of technical factors. That sort of behavior screams snake oil to me.

I would think the mat manufacturer would have done a similar analysis to help prove the effectiveness of their product... though I found no such discussion on Marigo's website.

On the other hand, as is so often the case, we can always choose to simply enjoy what we believe to be an enhancement regardless of any supporting data (or lack thereof).

This is exactly my point, Todd. If this disc provides such dramatic improvement, you could easily prove it objectively in numerous ways. But you won't find any of that sort of thing on Marigo's website, nor will you find a discussion of the scientific reasons why the disc might work. All you will find is glowing reviews from magazine writers who make their living by writing glowing reviews. And when people read those glowing reviews and get excited about it, and fork out $200 of their hard-earned money for it, lo and behold, they hear the same things they read about in those glowing reviews (the exact same types of things you read about in every glowing review of every tweak: more air, more precise imaging, clearer highs, deeper, tighter, more coherent bass, darker, quieter background, etc. etc.). How many tweaks can you add to your system that each provide "more air around the instruments" before you begin to realize that there really isn't that much "air" in an entire symphony hall? How many times can you reduce the noise to make the background "blacker" in a noticeable way?

 

[Gordon Gray]

HI Rich,

I totally understand your skepticism.

Loved your line about how much air is in a symphony hall.

For the price, I find great value. Only you and others can determine if that holds true by auditioning in your system.

If Ron is willing to offer a money back option and you are intrigued by the product, it only takes one phone call.

Take care,

Gordon

 

[twich54]

Loved your line about how much air is in a symphony hall.

As did I Gordon ! thanks Rich......for joining my 'bandwagon' !

 

[Gordon Gray]

Just to backup Gordon's findings, I currently use the prior version and can definitely say that it is a must have.

Over the years I have done numerous demos both with fellow Hifi friends and other non Hifi people and each time they opt for the disc.

It is one of those things, hard to believe until you try it for yourself.

Gordon, out of curiosity how much better would you say the new disc is over the original?

Thanks
M.

Hi Marck,

Can't compare due the very narrow vertical clearance in my Cary drawer.

I still use the previous mat in my DVD. Pretty easy A / B given the visual before / after.

FWIW, others have stated the current version is definitely an improvement.

Gordon

 

[marck]

Think I will just have to try and see...

M

 

[User211]

FWIW, others have stated the current version is definitely an improvement.

Gordon

How do you think it works, Gordon? You must have at least considered it.

Just curious as to your thoughts. Or is it a case of subjectivity overriding all logic?

EDIT: all guesses, no matter how bizarre, are entirely acceptable in the land of foo. Cos let's face it... that's where we are here.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Justin,

I don't rely on science per se. And when I read it, it doesn't make alot of sense to me anyways.

I trust my ears. Ron said I should try it. I did. I like it. It's that simple.

Obviously others would have a different approach, which is fine with me.

Gordon

PS: The mat cost was a small portion of the total cost including the modifications performed on my 306. And Ron gave me an audition / return option.

 

[sb6]

It would be very interesting to do a blind test to see if indeed you can clearly hear the benefit 50+% of the time. That would make this thread really interesting and would shut many naysayers up. I for one, don't really see how a mat would make a sonic difference in reading digital information by adding isolation to the transport mechanism (or whatever it does), but I've seen other strange things that made a difference, so who knows.

 

[amey01]

50+% of the time.

and

If you get it right more than 50% of the time, I will be impressed.

50% correct would be expected by chance alone. To be statistically significant, correct identification of the hypothesised benefit would have to be observed 9 times in 10. Or 15 from 20.

This thread has morphed into something eminently interesting though.
1. Do we understand (and can we measure) everything we hear? I believe absolutely and categorically not.
2. Conversely, do I believe that there can be differences in un-clocked digital data? No way. This kind of makes a mockery of point 1. (above).

It also opens questions as to hearing and how it works. Hearing/listening (and the invoked emotion) invites snake oil, because it is something we can't accurately (and objectively) measure. It is something we can't record, reproduce or remember. We can do an AB/X test, but that also does not really guarantee anything. If a real difference is present, how do we necessarily prove it is real by an AB/X test (since we can't necessarily remember the sound.

 

[tsv_1]

don't really see how a mat would make a sonic difference in reading digital information by adding isolation to the transport mechanism....

There are many intrusive agents that can wreak havoc within the disc read channel... stable disc rotation is most definitely a factor... and that's no spin

I agree that a blind test would yield interesting results. Shall we decend on GG's place for wine and blindfolds?

 

[sb6]

50% correct would be expected by chance alone. To be statistically significant, correct identification of the hypothesized benefit would have to be observed 9 times in 10. Or 15 from 20.

50+% not 50%. Also, is it 9/10 = 90% or 15/20 = 75%? I'd say if he can pick in favor of the mat 6/10 - 7/10 (which is essentially= 50+%) that's pretty compelling.

 

[Bernard]

I agree that a blind test would yield interesting results. Shall we decend on GG's place for wine and blindfolds?

I'll go for the wine. Blindfolds? A bit too kinky! Also, a blindfold affects your sense of balance, and since your ears are part of balance......

I have a concern about mats. They are not supposed to affect the drive, but what if one gets lodged in a drive and screws it us such that the drive is no longer operable? We do live in a world where drives become obsolete, and I would hate to think about using my expensive CDP for a boat anchor....especially since I don't own a boat !

Rich, your point about just how much air is there in a symphony hall may be well taken, but there seems to be no end to the number of improvements you can make to any system.

 

[amey01]

50+% not 50%. Also, is it 9/10 = 90% or 15/20 = 75%? I'd say if he can pick in favor of the mat 6/10 - 7/10 (which is essentially= 50+%) that's pretty compelling.

You need to understand statistical significance. The less tests, the more results you need to prove accurate to prove your point. So percentage is not the only point. It also depends on number of tests!

Doing one test (and getting it right) is very different from doing 100 tests (and getting them all right). That is why the percentage goes down.

stable disc rotation is most definitely a factor

Not necessarily. When there is a 6-cent buffer inserted after the data is read, and before the data is clocked (which I'm sure the Cary 306 has), it is irrelevant.