A silly, stupid bargain

[User211]

I think we need to consider the possibility that the developer of the mat is sitting there, reading threads like this, p*ssing himself laughing and counting the $$$.

 

[tsv_1]

I think we need to consider the possibility that the developer of the mat is sitting there, reading threads like this, p*ssing himself laughing and counting the $$$.

By that measure, I imagine the purveyors of the Hallograph Soundfield Optimizer have had laughter induced strokes.

(p.s. Bob Ross's sadistic twin?)

 

[Bernard]

I think we need to consider the possibility that the developer of the mat is sitting there, reading threads like this, p*ssing himself laughing and counting the $$$.

At $200 the mat should come with a money-back guarantee - 30 days at least. If Gordon says he hears a difference I believe him, but as he has said, it may be different in my system, so there's no way I'm coughing up $200 with no chance of a return.

 

[Rich]

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.

I agree with your point here, Adam. I was simply stating that I would be impressed if he got it right more times than what would be expected by chance. But you are correct, in order to perform a proper test to determine whether the disc made an audible difference, you would need to analyze according to statistical significance of the results.

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.

I would respond to this statement that if the improvement in sound is as dramatic as purveyors and supporters of these tweaks always claim it is, then the difference should be easily heard in an AB or AB/X test. You prove it is real by correctly picking out whether you are listening to the tweak or not. Gordon stated: "The difference is clearly audible on all CD / SACD discs I've tried although the difference in red book playback, to my ears, seems more dramatic." If the difference is so "clearly audible" to him, then he should have no problem picking correctly 90% of the time in an AB/X test. Unless, of course, the difference he "heard" was entirely psychosomatic, which is my suspicion. Along those lines, the difference should be even easier to pick out with a DVD, since you would have both an audio and a visual resource to draw from (since this disc is supposed to provide such dramatic improvements in picture quality with DVDs).

I have proved this to myself when I tested Sanders preamp against the ARC REF 3. The sound was very close (much closer than you would want to admit, having purchased the ARC), but I could always hear a very slight edginess to the highs with the Sanders vs. the ARC. The ARC was just smoother in the high end, and you could pick that out in an AB/X test. If there truly is an audible difference, one should be able to pick it out in an AB/X test just about every single time. I think it is really that simple. Those who would deny the relevance of an AB/X test in this situation really just don't want to be put in a position of having to admit that the dramatic differences they thought they heard were entirely psychosomatic.

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......

Balance has nothing to do with hearing and you would be sitting in a chair, so I don't see the relevance of this point. I think it is pretty clear that removing the extraneous stimulus of vision allows you to better hear details. Although, according to this study, it takes ninety minutes of being blindfolded before you start hearing details like a blind person: Ninety minutes blindfolded enhances your hearing

At any rate, I think being blindfolded definitely makes it easier to perform a blind test.

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.

More than anything, I was making that remark to take a humorous jab at all the paid reviewers who rave about all the audiophile catchphrase improvements to their supposedly top-end reference-level systems with the addition of each and every tweak they review. At some point, you just have to say that a lot of this is pure BS. Yes, you can make improvements to the sound with upgraded components, vibration isolation, trying various cables until you find the right match, etc. But at some point, you are not going to noticeably IMPROVE the sound any more. You are going to change the sound perhaps, and just because it is different, you may perceive that as an improvement. Or you are just going to convince your mind that there is an improvement when there is none. This placebo effect is strong, affects at least 30% of the population, and is well-documented in medical studies.

 

[sb6]

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.

I'm fully aware of statistical significance, sample size, etc, etc. Following your own methodology, 9/10 or 15/20 would be compelling. Of course even more tests might further bolster the claim that pads make a difference. I think we're on the same page here...

 

[Bernard]

Balance has nothing to do with hearing and you would be sitting in a chair, so I don't see the relevance of this point. I think it is pretty clear that removing the extraneous stimulus of vision allows you to better hear details.

Balance has nothing to do with hearing, but balance has everything to do with the ears. Sure you would be sitting in a chair, but that does not mean that balance does not come into play; balance is always in play.

At any rate, I think being blindfolded definitely makes it easier to perform a blind test.

Personally, I don't think I could ignore the nuisance of a blindfold.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Rich,

You are correct that using the mat on a DVD player allows one to not only hear but see the impact, assuming there is one, thereby simplifying the objective versus subjective process.

Perhaps a more defensible A / B test , within the context of using sight versus hearing, and easier to quantify.

Gordon

PS: Will gladly send you my other Marigo mat (V2 versus current V4) for your review / comments. V2 is a bit thicker so if your CDP or DVD drawer lacks sufficient space, could be an issue but isn't with most players.

Just PM your current address.

 

[Dougster]

A balanced response!?

Great thread! Science has limited understanding of anything including Hi Fi! It is ultimately subjective too cf quantum physics etc.
OTOH where a sensible scientific basis is lacking it pays to be wary or avoid entirely!

Gordon has inspired me to have fun with a fellow Hi Fi casualty pal (previous CLS owner currently runs Meridian 7200s) with a similar product to his - the Ringmat UK equivalent at max price of £30 here, and a blind test in my system and his. We are all prone to placebo effect.... Currently confirming money back is an option before going ahead! As we say here "Fit wie no?"

:ROFL:

 

[User211]

This is the one: Statmat. Have fun reading how it works

 

[Rich]

PS: Will gladly send you my other Marigo mat (V2 versus current V4) for your review / comments. V2 is a bit thicker so if your CDP or DVD drawer lacks sufficient space, could be an issue but isn't with most players.

Alright, Gordon is going to send me the V2 version of the mat and I am going to put it through its paces on CD, SACD, and DVD. If I think it makes a noticeable difference, audibly and/or visually, then I will do some blind testing and see if I can pick out the disc vs. no disc. Should be fun.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Actually Rich, I believe it's the previous model before the current iteration.

GG

 

[marck]

Just as a suggestion, since you get a money back guarantee why doesn't a few of you try the experiment. Nothing to loose, hey?

At least then people can back up their comments!!

M.

 

[Bernard]

Rich, when you report the results of your evaluation I would also like you to answer the question (assuming you do hear an improvement): would you pay $200 for the mat? Don't be shy; tell us what you really think.

Personally, I don't believe in paying money for subtle improvements; never did, even in the days when I listened with my head in a vise. I have upgraded stuff countless times, and every time it was a a hit-me-in-the-face upgrade. So, it will be really interesting to hear your opinion.

 

[amey01]

Rich, when you report the results of your evaluation I would also like you to answer the question (assuming you do hear an improvement): would you pay $200 for the mat? Don't be shy; tell us what you really think.

Yes, I also look forward to Rich's opinion.

But, I don't necessarily think either are accurate. Rich seems determined to hear no difference (and I'm sure his opinion will confirm that), and Gordon is conversely determined he will hear a difference.

Both are POTENTIALLY derived from (or influenced by) psychosomatics.

What WOULD be interesting is if someone makes some measurements - does it or does it not alter the data stream (does the mat cause 0s to be sent down the S/PDIF output instead of 1s?) and does the mat or does the mat not alter the timing (jitter)?

What would be really easy to measure is a ripped CD. Rip a CD with the mat and rip a CD without. Then checksum the resulting FLAC (or WAV) files. If they are identical then it is still not conclusive, but it does show another plus for music servers!!

 

[Bernard]

Just as a suggestion, since you get a money back guarantee why doesn't a few of you try the experiment. Nothing to loose, hey?

At least then people can back up their comments!!

M.

Marc, I don't see anything on Marigo's site about a money-back guarantee.

Incidentally, while we were going through our discussion on the dots, there was a post indicating that if we sent Marigo our address they would send us a dot for our cartridges. I sent them my address, but received nothing. Did anyone get a dot from them? It was disappointing that they did not follow through.

 

[Rich]

Rich, when you report the results of your evaluation I would also like you to answer the question (assuming you do hear an improvement): would you pay $200 for the mat? Don't be shy; tell us what you really think.

Right, Bernard. Because everyone knows I am one to hold back on expressing my opinion due to my excessive shyness. :ROFL:

Yes, I also look forward to Rich's opinion.

But, I don't necessarily think either are accurate. Rich seems determined to hear no difference (and I'm sure his opinion will confirm that), and Gordon is conversely determined he will hear a difference.

Both are POTENTIALLY derived from (or influenced by) psychosomatics.

I think this is a valid point, Adam. While I am not "determined" to not hear a difference, I am highly skeptical that I will hear one. And that could have the same effect on whether or not I do. I will try to get some others to compare as well in order to validate the trial. I have a friend who is a musician and he should be able to give a good solid opinion.

I do know that Gordon and I can have different subjective impressions regarding such things. I recall that Gordon is or was a big fan of the Mapleshade i.c.'s and speaker cables and heard a positive difference with them in his system. I heard no such difference in mine. If anything, I felt they degraded the sound compared to what I was using, particularly the speaker cables. Sprey at Mapleshade is another one that charges exorbitant prices for tweaks and components that are of questionable value, in my opinion. But I will say this, the man is an incredible recording engineer. The CD's he offers are spectacular sounding.

As far as ripping CD's to FLAC and checking data values, sorry but I can't help you there Adam. I have neither the equipment setup (I'm all Mac) nor the technical expertise to do so, nor the time needed to figure it all out. Plus, I wouldn't trust sticking this disc into one of my computers.

 

[Gordon Gray]

marck,

I have no problem shipping to others once Rich is done. Just send me a PM if you would like to try.

Seems like a good way to put meat on the bones, regardless of the individual results.

My only question is the difference between the mat I'm going to send Rich, which is Version 3, versus the one I recently auditioned, which is Version (and current) 4. There are definite physical differences (V4 is thinner and more pliant) although I believe the concept is the same.

I also saw a website selling V4 with a money back guarantee. Can track down options (and will check with Ron) if you all wish.

Gordon

PS: I will say that the "noise" coming from my transport, which was minimal but audible up close, has decreased by a substantial amount.

 

[User211]

Bernard - I also never received a dot.

 

[MiTT]

Bernard - I also never received a dot.

I got one. When I put it on my cartridge there were some subtle improvements, but when I pulled it off and licked it I saw God (surrounded by a bunch of purple furred ferrets with bear traps for their jaws. They were all wearing tutu's and were chanting "Tebow, Tebow, Tebow" in unison). I actually found it quite distracting.

 

[marck]

Marc, I don't see anything on Marigo's site about a money-back guarantee.
.

There is a site in the UK that has offered me a 14 day money back guarantee. Can provide details if required.

M.