Golden Audio Magic Ring

[Ducky]

So I'm assuming their magic ring is eligible for the JREF prize too.

From this site

Description/Theory: The Magic Ring (Standard size) is a 1 3/4-lb, dark metallic-gray, thick-walled cylinder with OD = 2 7/16 inch, L = 2 1/2 inches and H = 2 13/16 inches (including flat base). The Large Magic Ring weighs 2 1/4 lb, with OD = 2 5/8 inch, L = 2 11/16 inches and H = 2 15/16 inches (including base). The Magic Ring and Large Magic Ring can used with speaker cables, power cords and interconnects, as well as with the system components. The Magic Ring operates on the principle of "energy organization" in materials that conduct "signal" or electricity, as opposed to "conventional" principles such as magnetism or vibration control. The Magic Ring illuminates and expands the soundstage, lowers distortion and improves dynamics, especially micro dynamics.

What a load of crapola. Certainly is "magic" I guess.

So what if I were to set up a test on speaker cables measuring the load on the line before and after the ring and showed it didn't change anything?

If I were to demonstrate this and the GSIC chip couldn't do anything at all, would this company then face the same potential legal actions taken against the Quadro-Tracker?

 

[Mr. Skinny]

...dark metallic-gray, thick-walled cylinder...

In other words, a short piece of pipe. I wonder how it "illuminates the soundstage"?

What a crock.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

If I were to demonstrate this and the GSIC chip couldn't do anything at all, would this company then face the same potential legal actions taken against the Quadro-Tracker?

Problem is in the "demonstrate" part. If hundreds of "satisfied customers" supports them, are they still doing wrong?

 

[Ducky]

Re: Re: Golden Audio Magic Ring

Problem is in the "demonstrate" part. If hundreds of "satisfied customers" supports them, are they still doing wrong?

Non-sequiter. They are claiming it has a effect. It can be demonstrated that it does nothing at all, therefore selling this product is fraud. Whether people believe the fraud or not is irrelevant to whether fraud is being perpetrated.

People claimed snake oils helped them too.

 

[RebeccaC]

Re: Re: Golden Audio Magic Ring

Problem is in the "demonstrate" part. If hundreds of "satisfied customers" supports them, are they still doing wrong?

Yes. They are taking money on false pretenses.

 

[Jyera]

In other words, a short piece of pipe. I wonder how it "illuminates the soundstage"?
What a crock.

I am curious about what is a "soundstage".

Searched the web, and found lots of reference to a a company called Soundstage.

On GoldenSound website, they quoted a University lecturer from the Division of Music. She comment favorably about their DHcone.
http://www.dhcones.com/users.html
From the website of the university, I checked that this person do exists in the staff directory, and is a Assistant Professor of the Visual and Performing Arts.

This lecturer mentioned that the cones improved the soundstage. I presume the improvement to the soundstage by the magic ring refers to the same type of improvement.

Since the term soundstage was used by a lecturer related to music, this term must be a useful technical aspect of sound and music.

What is soundstage? Is it measurable?

Any expert who can enlighten us on this?

 

[Ducky]

I am curious about what is a "soundstage".

Searched the web, and found lots of reference to a a company called Soundstage.

On GoldenSound website, they quoted a University lecturer from the Division of Music. She comment favorably about their DHcone.
http://www.dhcones.com/users.html
From the website of the university, I checked that this person do exists in the staff directory, and is a Assistant Professor of the Visual and Performing Arts.

This lecturer mentioned that the cones improved the soundstage. I presume the improvement to the soundstage by the magic ring refers to the same type of improvement.

Since the term soundstage was used by a lecturer related to music, this term must be a useful technical aspect of sound and music.

What is soundstage? Is it measurable?

Any expert who can enlighten us on this?

I'll step up to that. I am a recording engineer and musician.

the term "soundstage" refers to the perception of space when listening to a stereo recording (or any multichannel recording.) Therefore the soundstage the are referring to is the perception of space (given the use of reverbs to add that "far away" dimension) and perception of left to right panning. To say that it is "expanded" is a useless statement, unless you've added surround sound into the equation. It is all about your perception of the recording.

As for those cones, they are high frequency tweeters that emit noises above the human perception of hearing. The average human adult can hear from 20Hz to roughly 18-19MHz. These emit at a frequency of 1 GHz, which is in the microwave frequencies. That's right: they emit at roughly the same frequencies as cable tv stations, communications satellites, cell phones, and microwave ovens. Per the product

description

Description/Theory: These remarkable speakers, sold in pairs, operate at extremely high frequencies -- much higher than the audio band - actually in the microwave band, above 1 Gigahertz (GHz). The Ultra Tweeters are connected to the output terminals of existing speakers with speaker cables - preferably light, flexible ones - since the Ultra Tweeters themselves are quite light. Ultra Tweeter principle of operation is very unconventional. They don't generate sound in the audio band, or even in the 20-100 KHz band like super-tweeters, but function in the Gigahertz frequency band (normally used for satellite and microwave communications). Ultra Tweeters organize and improve the energy flow in signal conductors as well as the internal wirings of speaker drivers, making the audio system perform more efficiently and synergistically.

They are equally a load of crap. You can't hear the effects of the speakers. While they do actually put out a sound wave, it would no more add to your listening enjoyment than having your microwave oven on in the same room as your stereo would.


Edited to correct use of microwave band to TV useage, satellite, microwave oven, and cell phones.

per answers.com

L band (20-cm radar long-band) is a portion of the microwave band of the electromagnetic spectrum ranging roughly from 0.39 to 1.55 GHz. It is used by some communications satellites, and by terrestrial Eureka 147 digital audio broadcasting (DAB). In the United States, the L band is held by the military for telemetry, thereby forcing digital radio to in-band on-channel (IBOC) solutions. DAB is typically done in the 1452–1492-MHz range as in Canada, but other countries also use VHF and UHF bands.

So I'd sure love to know how these tweeters actually do anything to improve the sound of recordings that don't have frequencies above 20MHz.

 

[Jyera]

The cones the lecturer referred to were DH-cones.

Which is just some sort of ceramic "legs". Which is supposed to reduce vibration. So I cannot quite understand how it might change the soundstage.

See here. http://www.dhcones.com/why.html

 

[Ducky]

The cones the lecturer referred to were DH-cones.

Which is just some sort of ceramic "legs". Which is supposed to reduce vibration. So I cannot quite understand how it might change the soundstage.

See here. http://www.dhcones.com/why.html

Aww man, I got all techinical for nothing on that one.

You're right, there is no way the DH Cones can do anything. They are not designed in a way to reflect, refract, or deaden sound in any way.

IT is a psychological response they had.

 

[CaveDave]

I'll step up to that. I am a recording engineer and musician.

... The average human adult can hear from 20Hz to roughly 18-19MHz. ...

... So I'd sure love to know how these tweeters actually do anything to improve the sound of recordings that don't have frequencies above 20MHz.

Surely, you must mean KHz (KiloHertz) instead of MHz (MegaHertz), don't you?

Dave

 

[Ducky]

Surely, you must mean KHz (KiloHertz) instead of MHz (MegaHertz), don't you?

Dave

Oops! Yes I do.

Stupid mistake on my part.

 

[mwilson]

Non-sequiter. They are claiming it has a effect. It can be demonstrated that it does nothing at all, therefore selling this product is fraud. Whether people believe the fraud or not is irrelevant to whether fraud is being perpetrated.

People claimed snake oils helped them too.

Of course Golden Audio is selling snake oil... but there is a possibility that it could have a measurable effect if the ring was made out of ferrite and you wrapped a cable around it a couple of times. The use of ferrite rings around cable to supress interference is quite common .

Then again why would Golden Audio bother to put a ferrite ring in there when they can sell it whether it works or not.

--
Mike

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Re: Re: Re: Golden Audio Magic Ring

Non-sequiter. They are claiming it has a effect. It can be demonstrated that it does nothing at all, therefore selling this product is fraud. Whether people believe the fraud or not is irrelevant to whether fraud is being perpetrated.

People claimed snake oils helped them too.

You wanted to say it is a "non sequitur". Anyway, I have been a member of several audiophile's forums, and no amount of reason will be able to open te eyes of most believers. No, it doesnt matter if you "proof" that the device does nothing.

So, if you read again what I said, all they need to "prove" that their device works is to have clients that will swear for the device. I repeat: The trick is in the demonstration, in what constitutes a demonstration, both in legal terms and for the audiophile crowds. Got it now?

 

[Ducky]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Golden Audio Magic Ring

You wanted to say it is a "non sequitur". Anyway, I have been a member of several audiophile's forums, and no amount of reason will be able to open te eyes of most believers. No, it doesnt matter if you "proof" that the device does nothing.

So, if you read again what I said, all they need to "prove" that their device works is to have clients that will swear for the device. I repeat: The trick is in the demonstration, in what constitutes a demonstration, both in legal terms and for the audiophile crowds. Got it now?

I had been waiting all morning! Of course!

I do see your point. I guess the problem being convincing someone to recognise self delusion when they've blown thousands on this crap is a worthless effort.

Some people would rather support this company than admit they did a bad review in a magazine, or spent too much money on crap.

 

[ktesibios]

Umm, I'm sure that it would be possible to test whether this overpriced piece of tubing produces any change at all in any measurable performance parameter- but the claims all seem to be about things which are unquantifiable or even undefined.

How does one measure "soundstage" for example? We know that crosstalk between left and right channels or differences in frequency response (amplitude or phase) can mess up the imaging of a stereo sound system, but measurements proving that the Magic Pipe have no effect at all on these would still not disprove the claim about "soundstage".

The claim about dynamics is another example. They're not claiming an improvement in the system's dynamic range or in the system's linearity, i.e., how accurately a level change at the input is reproduced at the output, both of which are measurable, but an improvement in something which lacks any formal definition.

The closest they come to making a falsifiable claim is the bit about "reducing distortion". The trouble is, what type of distortion is referred to? THD+N? 2nd HD? 3rd HD? IMD (SMPTE? CCITT? TIM?)? Whatever measurement you choose to make, if it fails to demonstrate an improvement, they've got the built-in escape hatch of saying "that's not what we meant".

Trying to disprove claims like thee, which are carefully constructed to be unfalsifiable, would be like trying to punch out a smokescreen- a total waste of energy.

 

[Ducky]

Umm, I'm sure that it would be possible to test whether this overpriced piece of tubing produces any change at all in any measurable performance parameter- but the claims all seem to be about things which are unquantifiable or even undefined.

How does one measure "soundstage" for example? We know that crosstalk between left and right channels or differences in frequency response (amplitude or phase) can mess up the imaging of a stereo sound system, but measurements proving that the Magic Pipe have no effect at all on these would still not disprove the claim about "soundstage".

The claim about dynamics is another example. They're not claiming an improvement in the system's dynamic range or in the system's linearity, i.e., how accurately a level change at the input is reproduced at the output, both of which are measurable, but an improvement in something which lacks any formal definition.

The closest they come to making a falsifiable claim is the bit about "reducing distortion". The trouble is, what type of distortion is referred to? THD+N? 2nd HD? 3rd HD? IMD (SMPTE? CCITT? TIM?)? Whatever measurement you choose to make, if it fails to demonstrate an improvement, they've got the built-in escape hatch of saying "that's not what we meant".

Trying to disprove claims like thee, which are carefully constructed to be unfalsifiable, would be like trying to punch out a smokescreen- a total waste of energy.

I'll admit the magic ring is the most difficult of all their accessories to demonstrate does nothing.

The GSIC chip was already dealt with, and I've emailed them about the ultra tweeters (see the other thread here ) so I guess the question is, how to debunk this one the most effectively?

 

[ktesibios]

The only way I can imagine to gather meaningful data about such nebulous and subjective claims would be carefully designed, double-blind A/B/X listening tests with a large enough sample to provide something akin to statistical significance. At least it should be possible to determine objectively whether or not any perceptible difference exists between with and without the gadget.

The trouble is, audio woos tend to reject blinded listening tests a priori.

jj's an expert on this kind of perceptual testing. He could probably give us several good earfuls on the subject.

One thing's for sure- you'll not be able to falsify any of their claims by electrical or acoustic measurement unless they're damfool enough to make a claim couched in meaningful technical language.

 

[Ducky]

The only way I can imagine to gather meaningful data about such nebulous and subjective claims would be carefully designed, double-blind A/B/X listening tests with a large enough sample to provide something akin to statistical significance. At least it should be possible to determine objectively whether or not any perceptible difference exists between with and without the gadget.

The trouble is, audio woos tend to reject blinded listening tests a priori.

jj's an expert on this kind of perceptual testing. He could probably give us several good earfuls on the subject.

One thing's for sure- you'll not be able to falsify any of their claims by electrical or acoustic measurement unless they're damfool enough to make a claim couched in meaningful technical language.

Well I think they were damn fool enough to make claims that can be falsified with the GSIC chip (i.e. their "master clock jitter explanation, though they've changed their tune now, and the claim that a microwave transmitter has any effect on your system with the tweeters) but not with this specific piece of garbage. Hence the dillemmas.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Golden Audio Magic Ring

I had been waiting all morning! Of course!

I do see your point. I guess the problem being convincing someone to recognise self delusion when they've blown thousands on this crap is a worthless effort.

Some people would rather support this company than admit they did a bad review in a magazine, or spent too much money on crap.

Exactly correct, how sad is that on the other hand... its a nice field of exploration for the ones (like me) who are interested in how and why people believe in the first place!

 

[Jyera]

Why does the ring works?
Or when does dubious stuff works?

I suspect it is more than just psychological effect.
So I think it might not be right to dismiss it to too quickly as just psychological.

Consider this ficticious scenario.

My CD player might need a perfectly flat surface, else it'll introduce jitter. But I may not know it. Then I install ABC (which could be the ring, or a premium cable) and discovered that it sounds better now. I therefore conclude convincingly that it had been beneficial. Not knowing that I might have adjusted my CD player.

Above is just one example.

Key point. The improvement might have been real. But it might not have any thing to do with ABC. On the other hand, it is very wrong to have accused the user of being foolish, and quite wrong to dismiss it as ONLY psychological effect. Qualitative or very small improvement that is hard to quantify would pose even more debate.

In fact,

I have convinced my young children that our TV is spoilt because they watch too much of it. And that after allowing it to "rest" for a month it'll work again.

I pulled out the antenna cable so the image is fuzzy. And when I want it to work, I put it back secretly and pretend to hit the TV. To the child, hitting it does work, resting it does work. Unless you expose my deed, you cannot argue with them that it is not real. Hitting and Rest works, and there is No psychological effect.