Call me crazy but they (magic dots) work!

[Gordon Gray]

Mr. Winer,

If you carefully read through all my posts, you will see that I never made the statement that the dots caused "the bass to be improved".

What I did say was that the dots improved mid bass "body" and that they brought the sonic spectrum into better balance.

Mid bass body and sonic balance improved because of the attenuation of high and mid frequency "energy" from the glass allowing me to better hear the "overall" sonic signature of my system.

No one can reasonably claim that bass would be "improved" as a result of the dots and I never meant to suggest that this is true with the dots in place. However, we all know, for example, that excess mid and lower bass energy have deleterious effects on the ability to hear mid and higher frequencies because the excess bass energy "masks" ones ability to hear a balanced presentation. An obvious visual analogy is looking through a window that is dirty and hasn't been cleaned for a year. One can see through the window but the dirt is masking detail of what you would clearly see if the window was clean. The opposite of this phenomena is also true.

I hope this helps clarify my observations in my personal system.

And to all, for me this worked. If you wish to try, please call Ron At Marigo and arrange for an in home audition so you can judge the efficacy on this product in your system.

GG

 

[twich54]

Gents, me thinks the last three posts(Ethan, Dan and Gordon) have summerized and clarified those which preseeded them.

good explanation men !!!

 

[Ethan Winer]

Agreed fully. And to be perfectly clear, I don't doubt that Gordon really heard a change. Perception is fleeting, and there was a huge drawn-out thread a few months ago at the Stereophile forum about perception. Some argued that if the sound really did not change, but one believed there was a change, that's as good as a real change. And worth paying handsomely for in the form of a tweak. I don't agree that a placebo tweak is worth hundreds of dollars, but it's not my place to tell others how to spend their money.

--Ethan

 

[jtwrace]

I contacted Ron at Marigo Labs asking him to respond to this thread. He e-mailed me back with this response:

thanks for the link and the invite. I have read most of the 63 posts there and with enjoyment. I have not had the time, or inclination really, to get involved in the various forums. However I will sign up for this particular forum next week. Seems like a great group. Also I've owned and greatly enjoyed Martin Logans and other panels. I'm leaving now being Friday afternoon. I'll respond concisely with hopefully no smoke and mirrors to the various issues and questions brought up. Enjoy the weekend.
best regards,
Ron Hedrich
Marigo Labs
You may copy this response to the group if you wish to.

 

[amey01]

There are no unknowns with audio. Everything has been understood fully for approaching 100 years.

If someone has a "theory" that something else hasn't yet been discovered, the burden of proof is on them.
--Ethan

Would it be easier if we look at what we've discovered in the last few short years?

When digital audio was first introduced, the phenonomen of jitter was unknown and therefore not measurable! Intelligent scientists were bambozzled at why different digital cables and digital outputs sounded different when theoretically they should all sound identical.

More recently, the phenonomen of upsampling was discovered by accident because nobody even attempted it - in theory it shouldn't work. By theory, there you cannot add more data to an audio signal. But upsampling works so well that nearly all high-end DACs employ it in some form these days. There have been various "attempts" to expalin what is going on, but so far no conclusive proof.

 

[Ethan Winer]

When digital audio was first introduced, the phenonomen of jitter was unknown and therefore not measurable! Intelligent scientists were bambozzled at why different digital cables and digital outputs sounded different when theoretically they should all sound identical.

I disagree. Jitter is simply not audible no matter what anyone says. My Artifact Audibility Report lets you hear for yourself the audibility of artifacts in the presence of music. Jitter is typically 40 to 60 dB softer than the soft artifacts in my examples. I'm convinced that when people claim to hear improved clarity after replacing digital cables the reason is the same as when replacing other cables - expectation bias, poor auditory memory, and comb filtering as described in my other article.

More recently, the phenonomen of upsampling was discovered by accident because nobody even attempted it - in theory it shouldn't work.

If you upsample a digital recording and the sound really changes, then there is a flaw in the hardware such as the high end being raised or lowered. Or a slight high-end boost is intentionally (read: fraudulently) added to make people think something else is going on and to justify the higher price.

By theory, there you cannot add more data to an audio signal.

Most graphic editor programs can increase the resolution of photographs by "up sampling" to create more data, then interpolating the in-between pixels. This can make a low-res photo look better, and it truly does add new "good" data. However, this is not done with audio sample rates though it probably could be done to increase bit depth and thus lower distortion.

upsampling works so well that nearly all high-end DACs employ it in some form these days.

I wonder if you're referring to over-sampling? That's a very different concept.

--Ethan

 

[jtwrace]

I'm convinced that when people claim to hear improved clarity after replacing digital cables the reason is the same as when replacing other cables - expectation bias, poor auditory memory, and comb filtering as described in my other article.

--Ethan

So Ethan, are you saying that lamp cord as speaker wire sounds the same as a high end audio speaker wire? Curious to hear your thoughts..

 

[Gordon Gray]

Don't want to beat the dead horse but, if I read Mr. Winer's latest post, he still considers the Marigo dots, and the resultant change I heard after installation, to be a "placebo" effect.

The inference is that he is standing by his initial claim that this product is pure fantasy and contributes nothing to addressing the sonic issues caused by a hard, reflective surface.

He appears to have cycled through the following positions:

1) Product is fantasy and has no effect.

2) Given the small size, product cannot address bass attenuation issues. Unstated, thus inferred by me by his omission is that product has ability to impact other areas of the frequency spectrum.

3) Product is a placebo. Product is fantasy and has no effect.

I want to remind all again that I had another listener there to provide his independent observations to specifically confirm or deny any differences I heard and avoid the argument that I was imagining that there was a positive change. He confirmed my observations.

Assuming the above accurately summarizes your previous posts Mr. Winer, what is your position?

GG

PS: Just to clarify what you mean by placebo, my understanding is that if one is exposed to something (with medications for example, one may be given a sugar pill versus a pill that is designed to effect a verifiable medical reaction or in this case, the dots and an auditory effect) and because one gets the placebo and believes something should happen, the individual experiences a change even though their is no scientific basis for that change.

To put it another way, your expectation of change creates the reality albeit imagined.

 

[User211]

More recently, the phenonomen of upsampling was discovered by accident because nobody even attempted it - in theory it shouldn't work. By theory, there you cannot add more data to an audio signal. But upsampling works so well that nearly all high-end DACs employ it in some form these days. There have been various "attempts" to expalin what is going on, but so far no conclusive proof.

Hm - I have often thought about this one. Nyquist states that you need 2 samples per wavelength to avoid aliasing. At high freqs. e.g 20Khz, which 99.5% of people on this forum can't hear, is all CD manages. So for a nice, smooth sine wave, we get a square wave out. No wonder it is accused of sounding sh*t at the top end of the freq. spectrum.

Shannon's theory states that per wavelength, you need about 20 samples for a decent representation. So maybe, even though the oversampling data is unreal, that's what is needed for human perception to like it better.

A TT will do this naturally with digital recordings - but then so will the analogue gutting head to an extent. But really, the cutting head is capable of way better. 44.1KHz is **** poor performance in this region. Which is why SACD did and does sound better. And they are real samples - not invented ones.

Other studies have shown that injecting noise or dither in recording is liked by the human ear. A great reason for Ethan to prefer a cassette recording over the original.

ZZZ - tired after going to the Top Gear car show. Anyway, I like Ethan's belief in science. But science is based on human perceptions... just like hearing. And it's hypothesis are constantly proved wrong, which simply results in better ones.

Science is not right. It is just a work in progress.

 

[Ethan Winer]

So Ethan, are you saying that lamp cord as speaker wire sounds the same as a high end audio speaker wire? Curious to hear your thoughts..

Yes, unless the high-end wire has extra contraptions on it to purposely degrade the sound, which I have seen. I've also seen flat wire that has so much capacitance it can audibly degrade the high end when used with some types of power amplifiers. But any competent wire that is thick enough for the task will sound like any other competent wire that is thick enough for the task. This is easily measured! It's also trivial to record the signal at the speaker terminals with each wire and do a null test on the files. That will reveal all differences, including those "science doesn't yet know how to measure."

If you consider the incredible complexity of modern electronics such as CPUs and LCD displays etc - that is fully understood by engineers - it seems unlikely that some basic property of ordinary wire would have escaped their attention. Everything about an audio cable can be described using only resistance, inductance, and capacitance. If high-end wire companies really were onto something you'd expect them to have some hard data showing the improvement. Yet they never do. All they have is flowery prose and photos of middle aged men dancing.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

2) Given the small size, product cannot address bass attenuation issues. Unstated, thus inferred by me by his omission is that product has ability to impact other areas of the frequency spectrum.

I don't think those things are large enough to have any affect at any frequency in a normal size room. Acoustics is all about the properties of the surfaces in the room. If you have 1,000 square feet of mostly reflecting surface and you cover 0.0001 percent of that with a different type of surface, the net change in dB will be too small to have a noticeable affect.

--Ethan

 

[User211]

Yes, unless the high-end wire has extra contraptions on it to purposely degrade the sound, which I have seen. I've also seen flat wire that has so much capacitance it can audibly degrade the high end when used with some types of power amplifiers. But any competent wire that is thick enough for the task will sound like any other competent wire that is thick enough for the task. This is easily measured! It's also trivial to record the signal at the speaker terminals with each wire and do a null test on the files. That will reveal all differences, including those "science doesn't yet know how to measure."

If you consider the incredible complexity of modern electronics such as CPUs and LCD displays etc - that is fully understood by engineers - it seems unlikely that some basic property of ordinary wire would have escaped their attention. Everything about an audio cable can be described using only resistance, inductance, and capacitance. If high-end wire companies really were onto something you'd expect them to have some hard data showing the improvement. Yet they never do. All they have is flowery prose and photos of middle aged men dancing.

--Ethan

Ethan, question yourself more...

This isn't meant to be rude - just real. Don't get so certain you are right about everything because you believe in certain parts of science.

I personally believe your remarks about cable are wrong. Just like my unsupported convictions about LP cutting heads.

"Back in my garage with my bullshit detector." Joe Strummer. The Clash. Dead, but good.

 

[Gordon Gray]

I don't think those things are large enough to have any affect at any frequency in a normal size room. Acoustics is all about the properties of the surfaces in the room. If you have 1,000 square feet of mostly reflecting surface and you cover 0.0001 percent of that with a different type of surface, the net change in dB will be too small to have a noticeable affect.

--Ethan

So you are clearly saying that what I and the other person heard was imagined and not real.

I stand by my previous post regarding your credibility and God complex. This is clearly reinforced by your other posts.

Seems others appear to agree. Oh well.

GG

 

[Ethan Winer]

Hey, don't shoot the messenger.

--Ethan

 

[amey01]

Hm - I have often thought about this one. Nyquist states that you need 2 samples per wavelength to avoid aliasing. At high freqs. e.g 20Khz, which 99.5% of people on this forum can't hear, is all CD manages. So for a nice, smooth sine wave, we get a square wave out. No wonder it is accused of sounding sh*t at the top end of the freq. spectrum.

NO - you don't get a square wave out. That's the DAC's job to create a perfect sine wave from those two samples. And it is possible. And it is exactly what is done.

 

[amey01]

I disagree. Jitter is simply not audible no matter what anyone says. My Artifact Audibility Report lets you hear for yourself the audibility of artifacts in the presence of music. Jitter is typically 40 to 60 dB softer than the soft artifacts in my examples. I'm convinced that when people claim to hear improved clarity after replacing digital cables the reason is the same as when replacing other cables - expectation bias, poor auditory memory, and comb filtering as described in my other article.



If you upsample a digital recording and the sound really changes, then there is a flaw in the hardware such as the high end being raised or lowered. Or a slight high-end boost is intentionally (read: fraudulently) added to make people think something else is going on and to justify the higher price.



Most graphic editor programs can increase the resolution of photographs by "up sampling" to create more data, then interpolating the in-between pixels. This can make a low-res photo look better, and it truly does add new "good" data. However, this is not done with audio sample rates though it probably could be done to increase bit depth and thus lower distortion.



I wonder if you're referring to over-sampling? That's a very different concept.

--Ethan

1: We can argue about the audibility of jitter later - fact is, it was a recent discovery. That is my point.

2: Regarding image manipulation, you are talking about digital-->digital
conversion. Of course you can add more bits and interpolate.

What you're negelecting to account for is the DAC - it is the DAC's job to do the interpolation - perfectly. It creates a continious sinewave from the digital bits. It does the interpolation by default. So adding more bits / interpolating in the digital domain is futile - or in theory anyway. But as we know this is not the case.

A digital image will always be a collection of dots - I'm aware of no way to convert it back to analogue.

 

[Ethan Winer]

1: We can argue about the audibility of jitter later - fact is, it was a recent discovery. That is my point.

I don't think that's true. Sloppiness in switching transitions has been around forever.

A digital image will always be a collection of dots - I'm aware of no way to convert it back to analogue.

Well, a digital image can have higher resolution than an analog photo. This is a common mistake I see, where people believe that analog tape and vinyl (and film) have infinite resolution. In fact, all of these mediums have grain and noise that obscures detail in the same way digital "steps" do.

Again, jitter was never an issue as far as I'm aware. Just because we can measure something doesn't mean it's audible! For example, we can easily measure noise many dB below what is audible.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

I see Gordon deleted his last insulting post. I can't for the life of me understand why some people get so angry about this stuff, unable to have a civil conversation about the science of audio without throwing insults. Whatever. This cartoon surely applies here:

 

[TomDac]

I see Gordon deleted his last insulting post. I can't for the life of me understand why some people get so angry about this stuff, unable to have a civil conversation about the science of audio without throwing insults. Whatever. This cartoon surely applies here:

I deleted that post as I thought it was not appropriate.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Tom,

I respect your judgement and will do my best to keep my comments appropriate.

I must say that I do take extreme offense when a manufacturer or rep, who has a clear interest in selling his product and, by nature, has an inherent conflict of interest, makes claims that I or others that don't subscribe to their dogma, live in a "fantasy" world and that observations that are in conflict with what they believe, are imagined and not real.

Sorry, but I would like other forum members input on the following question.

Should manufacturers or their reps have the opportunity to use this forum to discredit other competing products and claim that those who have a different perspective are not reality based, said basis being anchored in their self serving interests to market and sell their product?

GG

PS: Tom, recognizing that this issue is more appropriately addressed in the "Off Topic" section of the website, I will start a new thread. Chow.