| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#241
|
|||
|
|||
tweaks and proof
Chelvam wrote:
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message news:Op1Ec.131324$Sw.102641@attbi_s51... snip...snip.. Then let one do it. I DID hear differences in discs so treated, and I am super-skeptical. Knowledge is never exhaustive. Ther could well be mechanisms that have been overlooked. Would appreciate if you could indicate the type of the player and do you place your player in a brightly lit room. I have not heard any difference but my friends claim they do. One thing in common with them was the placement of the CD player under direct lighting. Ambient lighting affects the sound of a CD player? I'd never heard that one before. Are we present at the creation of a new urban myth? bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Get fast, reliable Internet access with MSN 9 Dial-up – now 3 months FREE! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm...ave/direct/01/ |
|
#242
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Hi,
In message Op1Ec.131324$Sw.102641@attbi_s51, Michael Scarpitti writes Bromo wrote in message news:%MMDc.103969$2i5.12913@attbi_s52... On 6/27/04 5:57 PM, in article , "Glenn Booth" wrote: Grade school kids know that 1+1 = 2 intuitively; Well, if they pay attention to their lessons, yes! :-) they don't need proof to know the truth of it. In a similar way, a competent physicist, armed with knowledge of how CDs work, could debunk (e.g.) the 'green pen' tweak without needing to design a proof; they would simply know that it could not work by the stated method. Then let one do it. I DID hear differences in discs so treated, and I am super-skeptical. It's been done. It's been done to death, in this very group, for at least ten years. It's been done so much that it has its very own page at snopes. See http://www.snopes.com/music/media/marker.htm. A google search for "green pen" in this group will find you plenty of references. I don't doubt your conviction that you heard differences, but don't be fooled into thinking that being "super-sceptical" does anything to eliminate bias. It isn't so. Knowledge is never exhaustive. Ther could well be mechanisms that have been overlooked. If it works by some mechanism that has been overlooked, it isn't working by the stated method, is it? -- Regards, Glenn Booth |
|
#243
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... Bromo wrote: On 6/27/04 1:51 AM, in article FftDc.99337$2i5.10037@attbi_s52, "S888Wheel" wrote: Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years = of debate you should have already considered this. Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the consumer, think. And question. I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game played on consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issu= es. I think Tom is just waiting for one subjectivbist to give a technically inep= t answer so he can pounce on that person. The fact is it doesn't matter what an= swer he gets from the consumer. The question is one that should be posed to t= he designer I believe that it is a mistake for someone who hears a difference= , scientist, consumer or designer, unless really skilled in the art= , to offer and "explanation" - because invariably a debunker will be able to= refute the explanation (only proving the someone in question didn't know why= the difference was noted) and avoid the more difficult and intellectu= ally important task of proving or disproving the observation. Now let's give a counter example to illustrate how you are wrong. S= ACD and CD versions of the same recording were sometimes assumed to be mastered identically and any superiority of the sound clearly due t= o the better technical specs of DSD. Recently people noticed that on some= Telarc recording, the two versions sound different. Careful inspection of the CD wave files shows digital clipping. Thi= s clearly indicates an intentional compression on the CD by the maste= ring engineer. Follow-up emails to Telarc confirm this. So here is an example that shows people hear differences, and were = able to provide an explanation that runs counter to the popular notion t= hat the two versions are mastered the same way, or that DSD has to be superior. Now, Mr. Bromo, why don't you try to refute this explanat= ion? By the way, Norm Strong provided a link to this incident a few days= ago. Yes, but you conveniently overlook two things: Not really, unless you can refute that explanation. 1) You and the other objectivists used to argue that the SA-CD layer= sounded better than the CD layer because the SA-CD layer had been artificial= ly boosted in volume. Exactly the opposite is true, which all else bei= ng equal, would give the advantage to the CD layer. Not when the boost is so much that distortion is audible. =20 Never even mentioned as a possibility in prior discussion with relation= to SA-CD. There were a lot of mentions of the CD layer being mastered differently=20 than the SACD layer. Is your point simply that some objectivists have overlooked the possible = reasons why they are mastered differently? =20 Furthermore, some of us claimed that the *players* themselves boost up= the level a notch when playing the SACD layer. See the difference? =20 See the interesting work done by Christine Tham illustrating that CD technology under some circumstances produces levels 1 to 3 db higher th= an odbf when reconstructing redbook material.=20 I think that work has been roundly critiqued on this newsgroup, so no=20 sense in rehashing the objections here. But what is the relevance here?=20 Are you now saying too that indeed the two layers are not mastered equall= y? This work duplicated work presented in an AES paper entitled "0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering"= by S=C3=B8ren H. Nielsen and Thomas Lund of T.C. Electronic A/S. =20 Perhaps the SACD people, if they are doing what you claim, are simply t= rying to equalize average levels. But you have also not *proven* your claim.= =2E.as far as I can remember, it is simply an assertion that this *may* be true...an excuse generated for the general audiophile preference for SA= -CD in informal AB's. I never tried to prove any claim in that post, which was to show how=20 Bromo was wrong in saying that any explanation for audible differences=20 will be refuted. What is true, and proven, is that there is intentional degradation of=20 the CD quality in some recordings, compared to SACD's. BTW, how hard would it be to prove that the playback levels are not the=20 same? =20 2) Of course, all else is not equal since there is compression and clipping. Which should lead you to ponder that these artifacts were heard with= out dbt as an inferior sound from the CD layer by those of us who thought th= e SACD sound superior. The point however is that the superiority may not lie in the DSD technology, but is the result of mastering differences. Which is what = we have always suspected as to why the two layers may sound different. =20 Still, did not require dbt's to hear. And the argument was usually mad= e that the CD's were deliberately downgraded, whereas in the case of the Telarc disks we have state of the art masters following industry-standa= rd practice. =20 Not sure if I catch your point. If the CD and the SACD were from the=20 same master, we postulate that it will require DBT's to tell them apart, = because the differences will be subtle at best. If the two layers are=20 mastered differently, with the CD having intentional clipping, it is not = surprising that dbt's are not required to tell them apart. If you followed the thread that Norm Strong linked to, you will find=20 that indeed Telarc downgraded the CD layer, via mastering. And there are CD's that are mastered correctly, too. =20 Yep..but there is no proof one way or the other that completely control= led DSD masters with no compression will sound the same on CD as on SA-CD. = It is still a hypothesis until proven...and it hasn't been proven. Well, is there any proof that they will sound different? Has it been=20 proven that SACD and CD will sound different if mastered the same way? =20 3) None of this necessarily establishes that CD will sound as good a= s SACD even if they are exactly level matched and uncompressed. But it explains why some people believe that SACD's sound different or= better. =20 It may in some cases. But not in all necessarily. The assertion that = there is no difference in sound has not been proven in practice. =20 Other experiments appear to indicate that no one has detected a difference when two were mastered the same way. Like carefully recordi= ng the output of a SACD player on redbook CD. =20 Please show me the peer-reviewed study done on an extremely high-qualit= y home system (not a PC) that shows this? No, just blind testing done by serious hobbyists. Now, can you show me a = peer-reviewed study that shows SACD will sound different from CD? More = importantly, what is the theoretical reason why SACD will sound better=20 than CD? BTW, do you really need an "extremely high-quality home system" to tell=20 them apart? That could lead to all kinds of excuses when the results are = not what you like  .A sidenote he a lot of audiophiles claimed that SACD sound better=20 than DVD-A, because it does not have that "PCM digital grit". A recent=20 AES convention paper shows that no difference was detected between DVD-A = and SACD. So much for audiophiles' claims, or digital grit, whatever=20 that means. =20 Sometimes things don't fit conveniently into the boxes you wish to p= ut them in. I would say that this is true. Now, what boxes do you wish to put them= into? .=20 None. No need for boxes. An inquisitive attitude and an open mind...combined with a real familiarity with live acoustic (non-amplifi= ed) music is all that is required. Well, I have a grand piano at home, and my kids play piano, flute,=20 saxophone and drums. I think I know how real instruments sound. If you have an open mind, you should entertain the possibility that=20 indeed there is no reason why SACD should sound better than CD. One=20 would think that if SACD really sounds better, there would have been=20 DBT's that back that up. |
|
#244
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
|
|
#246
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Bromo wrote:
On 6/28/04 6:46 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: Peter Forsell said his design wrok was mostly trial and error. His turntable went through over fifty different incarnations, All decisions were based on listening tests. Trial and error. OK so they just randomly substitute parts/circuits and "hope" for improvement. With the several hundred "parts" inside an amplifier exactly how do they ever hone-in on an optimized design? Don't they have to perform listening tests on "every" part and on "every" change in value? Armstrong, the father of FM, and a large force in modern communications, was an empiricist in design. Not doing audiophile stuff (RF pays a lot better) surely, but don't denigrate the empiricists - theory gets you to the bench and can even help you around it a bit, but sometimes in design a bit of empirical sweating is what it required (I would follow it up with explanations of what you found that were sound which I suspect was not the case here, but still ... ) Amrstrong was a professor of EE at Columbia University. Do you think he came up with his innovations purely on trial and error, or do you think he had ideas first, and knew how to make measurements to turn the ideas into innovations? This is the first time I heard that Armstrong worked mostly by trial and error. Can you provide some link? |
|
#247
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
On 6/28/04 9:41 PM, in article TM3Ec.124296$eu.23157@attbi_s02, "Harry Lavo"
wrote: None. No need for boxes. An inquisitive attitude and an open mind...combined with a real familiarity with live acoustic (non-amplified) music is all that is required. Yes, I would agree whole heartedly - familiarity with live unamplified live music is the only legitimate comparison. |
|
#248
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
|
|
#249
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
Bromo wrote:
I assume that you discrd the possibility that they honestly heard a difference? I don't at all. Was it acoustical in origin is the question. What are the chances that it was? |
|
#250
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
Bromo wrote:
On 6/29/04 6:43 PM, in article , "Rich.Andrews" wrote: The other reason is that in their quest for 'The Ultimate Sound', people will put aside common sense and critical thinking in favor of anything that others say work. This is one of the reasons that health quacks continue to prosper today. That's true. It's, like losing weight, the "easy" way. Be careful - by placing wild speculations on people's motivation, you are being about as careful as the people you criticize. I assume that you discrd the possibility that they honestly heard a difference? In many cases that is true. How do I know this? I can only refer you to the "lack" of bias controlled listening tests that have demonstrated amp/cable sound. Or green ink, or you-name-the-urban-legend. While not a proponent of the high end malarchy that seems to propogate itself, it is a mistake to disregard *all* things in an attempt to be extreme the other way as well - which is what I personally tend to disagree with. What I disagree with is the tendency to oblige uncontrolled listening evaluations also seems to the same tencency disregard (even reject) the existing evidence. A good source and quality components in a acoustically good room give you the best chance at having the best sound. It is easy to lose sight of that basic premise - and mistakenly line your room with acoustic wood blocks - or make the other mistake and put sub-par components in the equally mistaken belief that nothing matters in sound reproduction. The whole setup does not need to cost a mint, nor will it be done using really cheaply made and marketed components. Well it "can" be done with inexpensive zip card and junk-box interconnects, relatively inexpensive loudspeakers, lo-fi cd and now dvd players combined with a propensity to acquire knowledge about acoustics, system deployment and set-up that "open minded audiophiles" just don't seem to be willing to acquire ..... as an alternative to throwing legend and money at the task. |
|
#251
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
"Chelvam" wrote in message news:MLgEc.2982$AI.1306@attbi_s04...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message news:Op1Ec.131324$Sw.102641@attbi_s51... snip...snip.. Then let one do it. I DID hear differences in discs so treated, and I am super-skeptical. Knowledge is never exhaustive. Ther could well be mechanisms that have been overlooked. Would appreciate if you could indicate the type of the player and do you place your player in a brightly lit room. I have not heard any difference but my friends claim they do. One thing in common with them was the placement of the CD player under direct lighting. Sony CDP 507ESD, bought in 1988. The player sits in an audio cabinet in dim light. |
|
#252
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Glenn Booth wrote in message news:2hkEc.498$7t3.424@attbi_s51...
Then let one do it. I DID hear differences in discs so treated, and I am super-skeptical. It's been done. It's been done to death, in this very group, for at least ten years. It's been done so much that it has its very own page at snopes. See http://www.snopes.com/music/media/marker.htm. A google search for "green pen" in this group will find you plenty of references. Tell me. I don't doubt your conviction that you heard differences, but don't be fooled into thinking that being "super-sceptical" does anything to eliminate bias. It isn't so. I had NO foreknowledge of what (if anything) to expect. I simply performed an experiment. You know, EMPIRICAL testing. I trust my own senses more than anything anyone can say. Knowledge is never exhaustive. Ther could well be mechanisms that have been overlooked. If it works by some mechanism that has been overlooked, it isn't working by the stated method, is it? What 'stated method' is that? I am aware of NO claims made by green pen mfrs. |
|
#253
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
On 6/30/04 1:31 PM, in article wNCEc.3184$MB3.2076@attbi_s04, "Nousaine"
wrote: A good source and quality components in a acoustically good room give you the best chance at having the best sound. It is easy to lose sight of that basic premise - and mistakenly line your room with acoustic wood blocks - or make the other mistake and put sub-par components in the equally mistaken belief that nothing matters in sound reproduction. The whole setup does not need to cost a mint, nor will it be done using really cheaply made and marketed components. Well it "can" be done with inexpensive zip card and junk-box interconnects, relatively inexpensive loudspeakers, lo-fi cd and now dvd players combined with a propensity to acquire knowledge about acoustics, system deployment and set-up that "open minded audiophiles" just don't seem to be willing to acquire ..... as an alternative to throwing legend and money at the task. Where I would agree with you - is that if you had a low/mid-fi rig in a room that was acoustically nearly perfect, it would likely outshine an expensive rig in a room that was not acoustically good and not set up well. However, if you happen to have the means, and get an acoustically decent room, and fill it with excellent gear that works well together - well, that is a thing to hear. The local high end dealer has such a room - and lets customers listen to it as long as they desire - with the idea by letting customers listen to true high fidelity equipment in a good room, they will appreciate what can be done even with a much more modest setup. Will give acoustical advise even though they do not sell the stuff rather than have expensive upgrades! |
|
#254
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Glenn Booth wrote in message news:2hkEc.498$7t3.424@attbi_s51... Then let one do it. I DID hear differences in discs so treated, and I am super-skeptical. It's been done. It's been done to death, in this very group, for at least ten years. It's been done so much that it has its very own page at snopes. See http://www.snopes.com/music/media/marker.htm. A google search for "green pen" in this group will find you plenty of references. Tell me. I don't doubt your conviction that you heard differences, but don't be fooled into thinking that being "super-sceptical" does anything to eliminate bias. It isn't so. I had NO foreknowledge of what (if anything) to expect. You don't have to "expect" a particular outcome to be fooled. All you have to do is to "know" that the two things you are comparing are different. Your brain does the rest. I simply performed an experiment. You know, EMPIRICAL testing. I trust my own senses more than anything anyone can say. Trusting your senses is NOT empirical. Not even close. Try trusting just one sense at a time. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Get fast, reliable Internet access with MSN 9 Dial-up – now 3 months FREE! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm...ave/direct/01/ |
|
#256
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Hi,
In message tEJEc.7677$%_6.2982@attbi_s01, Michael Scarpitti writes Glenn Booth wrote in message news:2hkEc.498$7t3.424@attbi_s51... Then let one do it. I DID hear differences in discs so treated, and I am super-skeptical. It's been done. It's been done to death, in this very group, for at least ten years. It's been done so much that it has its very own page at snopes. See http://www.snopes.com/music/media/marker.htm. A google search for "green pen" in this group will find you plenty of references. Tell me. Tell you what? You can do your own research; it would simply be reinventing the wheel. I don't doubt your conviction that you heard differences, but don't be fooled into thinking that being "super-sceptical" does anything to eliminate bias. It isn't so. I had NO foreknowledge of what (if anything) to expect. I simply performed an experiment. You know, EMPIRICAL testing. I trust my own senses more than anything anyone can say. That's 'senses' (plural) right? And with no foreknowledge of what to expect, you just walked in to the store, and thought, 'hey, a green pen. I've no idea what it's supposed to do, but I guess I'll just buy one anyhow'. Knowledge is never exhaustive. Ther could well be mechanisms that have been overlooked. If it works by some mechanism that has been overlooked, it isn't working by the stated method, is it? What 'stated method' is that? I am aware of NO claims made by green pen mfrs. So really, what made you try it? I'd like to know. In the case of the stoplight green pen, the claims I have found include this: "CD Stoplight was developed to passively reduce the effects of stray light that ultimately causes jitter. By absorbing the stray light at the transport passively, rather than attempting to reduce its effects downstream electronically, jitter is reduced at the source - keeping it out of the playback chain. Packaged with a special applicator, CD Stoplight is easy to apply. It is non-toxic, environmentally friendly and will not flake or peel. Compact Discs treated with CD Stoplight sound more neutral, less edgy and significantly more open." Audio Prism has apparently now closed its doors, so I guess they won't be making any further claims of this sort. -- Regards, Glenn Booth |
|
#257
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:iEJEc.7105 snip..snip.. Sony CDP 507ESD, bought in 1988. The player sits in an audio cabinet in dim light. Ok one more silly question. Can any of the panel or power light visible inside the player? |
|
#258
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
|
|
#259
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
On 1 Jul 2004 22:44:07 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote:
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message news:iEJEc.7105 snip..snip.. Sony CDP 507ESD, bought in 1988. The player sits in an audio cabinet in dim light. Ok one more silly question. Can any of the panel or power light visible inside the player? Can we just kill this nonsense once and for all? CD players read discs using a light source which is *thousands* of times more intense than any possible external light source - even if you shone a car headlight directly at the disc, or left it in direct sunlight, you would not affect the datastream. This would be the case for white, red, blue, green or even infrared light. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#260
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
Bromo wrote:
On 7/1/04 6:40 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: You must live in an extraordinary location. I've, after living in the Chicago and Detroit areas for a combined 20 years and visiting audio salons from New York to LA, never encountered an acoustically "decent" room for audition. All but one or two have been set-up with the existing retail architecure, none of which emulates typical room dimensions and certainly not "yours." The store is a converted house - and the rooms have been acoustically treated, though not hugely so. I can e-mail you the store name if you would like to visit them and "check it out" - the upstairs room with the dCS gear. As was Sunshine Stereo; the best ones are like your living room, (it may have been typical but it wasn't optimized) the others have been just speakers arranged to show as many as possible in a given floor space. And so what....can they deliver on a bias-controlled test of amplifier/wire/bit sound? Can they deliver a level matched comparison of anything? All, except a few, have had numbers of audio related gear arranged about, and those that didn't were "cave-like". I've never been in an audio salon, except where the salon was the "store" at home that resembled a modern home listening environment. And certainly even fewer that had "good" acoustics including the "home stores." Its true the "home stores" don't have good listening environments but IME the audio stores don't really have better listening environments by and large. Plus they have better salesmen; those who don't claim to know there is to know about whatever you want to buy. |
|
#261
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
On 2 Jul 2004 02:05:49 GMT, Bromo wrote:
The store is a converted house - and the rooms have been acoustically treated, though not hugely so. I can e-mail you the store name if you would like to visit them and "check it out" - the upstairs room with the dCS gear. If the store is that good, what's wrong with posting the name so that others can enjoy its benefits? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#262
|
|||
|
|||
|
Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:kOfFc.14135$IQ4.13844@attbi_s02... snip..snip.. Ok one more silly question. Can any of the panel or power light visible inside the player? Can we just kill this nonsense once and for all? CD players read discs using a light source which is *thousands* of times more intense than any possible external light source - even if you shone a car headlight directly at the disc, or left it in direct sunlight, you would not affect the datastream. This would be the case for white, red, blue, green or even infrared light. That's not so good for inquiring minds. More proof that something is going on beyond our conventional understanding of CD Player. Quoting again, from David W. Sukow, assistant professor of physics and engineering at Washington and Lee University, who has received the National Science Foundation's most prestigious award for research involving optics and lasers. "They are especially sensitive to stray light, which is unavoidable in many real situations; it may arise from a reflection of the laser beam off of your compact disc, for example. Then instead of a nice, steady beam of light coming out, the laser may start to oscillate and pulse erratically. This is bad, at least from a technological point of view." link http://home.wlu.edu/~sukowd/research.html Are you going to say he can't prove anything since DBT says otherwise. |
|
#263
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
From: chung
Date: 6/28/2004 3:58 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 8o1Ec.107786$2i5.20436@attbi_s52 S888Wheel wrote: From: chung Date: 6/27/2004 1:17 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: rXFDc.125025$Sw.22327@attbi_s51 And you feel that lumping the fools and the geniuses together as designers is fair to the geniuses? Are you going to be the arbitrator of who the fools and geniuses are? Are you so brilliant that you can make that determination for the world? Gee, when did I ever say that? It was a question not a statement. Assuming you are asking real questions and not rhetorical ones, the answers are no to each. Then why do you expect me to make the distinction? I sense your strong sarcasm in the question regarding making determination for the world. Wonder how you arrive at that. I suggest reviewing the thread. You were the one who said that there were fools and geniuses... And you seemed to agree. You then asked if I were going to lump them together as designers. If you feel you can make the definitive distinction then you have more confidence in your opinions than I do. If you don't then why ask the question about lumping them together as designers? Since you said that there are fools and geniuses, you must have some idea about how to tell them apart, no? Sometimes. But I don't think my opinions are definitive. So I cite them as designers regardless of my opinions on thier talents. How is it that I can make the *definitive distinction*? I am sure you will not agree with some of my distinctions. The fact that I cannot make the *definitve* distinction does not mean that I have no opinion on who the fools are. Then you should have a better idea why I called all of them designers. If they design equipment then they are designers, regardless of your opinion or my opinion of thier designs. Of course, what you call geniuses I may disagree, so how could there be an arbitrator in this case? That was my point. So why ask if I am going to lump designers together as designers without distinguishing the geniuses from the fools? Here is the question in more detail. Using your own definition of fools and geniuses, do you think it's fair to lump them together as designers? Yes, because I do not hold my opinions as definitive. What part was designed in shatki stones? Or cable-lifters? You seriously think that there are designers designing these things? I think you have to ask the designers. I really don't know anything about Shatki stones or cable filters. I cannot tell you if there was any design involved. So there may not be any designers to ask, no? There certainly is someone to ask. Even if there were no designs involved there was an idea that saw the light of day as a consumer product. Well, that's not the same as asking the designers, then. You mean to say we should ask the marketeers in that case? No. I meant we should ask the person who either designed or developed or discovered the product in question. If I had a question about how something works I would not go to the marketing department for that answer. |
|
#264
|
|||
|
|||
|
Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)
Yes, because he isn't talking about research he has done using a cd but
was using a potential situation with which the students he was addressing would be familiar. Do you think that sony and philips are not also aware of this when they developed the cd? It is a potential problem in specific situations and the scientist in him would, as no doubt the developers above did, would soulve the problem long before it came to consumer use. Even then he would be happy and comfortable using a dbt if he thought any residual problems associated with stray light might be involved in the audable signal. Think too that the small distances here where the strong, not a stray reflection from some place, is reflected directly back into the lens of the diode is the questionable situation. When we have lab testing and/or dbt results to show this is a real world problem in home use we can forget any tweek theory and forgo any comfort one might be seeking for an unfounded answer for a non problem. ""They are especially sensitive to stray light, which is unavoidable in many real situations; it may arise from a reflection of the laser beam off of your compact disc, for example. Then instead of a nice, steady beam of light coming out, the laser may start to oscillate and pulse erratically. This is bad, at least from a technological point of view." link http://home.wlu.edu/~sukowd/research.html Are you going to say he can't prove anything since DBT says otherwise." |
|
#265
|
|||
|
|||
|
Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)
Chelvam intoned:
Quoting again, from David W. Sukow, assistant professor of physics and engineering at Washington and Lee University, who has received the National Science Foundation's most prestigious award for research involving optics and lasers. "They are especially sensitive to stray light, which is unavoidable in many real situations; it may arise from a reflection of the laser beam off of your compact disc, for example. Then instead of a nice, steady beam of light coming out, the laser may start to oscillate and pulse erratically. This is bad, at least from a technological point of view." Are you going to say he can't prove anything since DBT says otherwise. Only if YOU are going to tell us that you studied the phenomenon with the same level of expertise that he did, instead of grasping at some quote without a clear understanding of the context in which he is making the statement, eh? Now, what IS known is that the reflection of the bottom of the disk or off the reflective layer can trigger the sorts of sintability he is talking about, and when that happens, you have pretty substantial error rates, EASILY detectable, in that it results in the inability to read the disk reliably. One sees this sort of failure with laser diodes that are marginally operating. Is it your claim that CD player diode lasers are marginally operational? If so, why aren't you taking these players back and returning them as defective? Where did the good professor say ANYTHING about the role of black trays, green ink or any other such measures? With nothing more than a precise, how on earth can you declare that "you now have the proof?" Where did he, for example, |
|
#266
|
|||
|
|||
|
Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)
Chelvam wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:kOfFc.14135$IQ4.13844@attbi_s02... snip..snip.. Ok one more silly question. Can any of the panel or power light visible inside the player? Can we just kill this nonsense once and for all? CD players read discs using a light source which is *thousands* of times more intense than any possible external light source - even if you shone a car headlight directly at the disc, or left it in direct sunlight, you would not affect the datastream. This would be the case for white, red, blue, green or even infrared light. That's not so good for inquiring minds. More proof that something is going on beyond our conventional understanding of CD Player. Are you interested in audible degradations, or any measureable degradations? Quoting again, from David W. Sukow, assistant professor of physics and engineering at Washington and Lee University, who has received the National Science Foundation's most prestigious award for research involving optics and lasers. "They are especially sensitive to stray light, which is unavoidable in many real situations; it may arise from a reflection of the laser beam off of your compact disc, for example. Then instead of a nice, steady beam of light coming out, the laser may start to oscillate and pulse erratically. This is bad, at least from a technological point of view." In that case, there will be either (a) higher error rates, or (b) larger timing errors measured. Pretty easy to show them via tools. link http://home.wlu.edu/~sukowd/research.html Are you going to say he can't prove anything since DBT says otherwise. You are making a logical error. DBT's are used to detect audible differences. There may well be measureable differences not detectible via DBT's because there is no audible consequence. |
|
#267
|
|||
|
|||
|
Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
news:Fn5Gc.26634$Oq2.9414@attbi_s52... Chelvam intoned: snip.. Only if YOU are going to tell us that you studied the phenomenon with the same level of expertise that he did, instead of grasping at some quote without a clear understanding of the context in which he is making the statement, eh? You are missing the point. Those quotes were meant to establish that stray light in CD can affect the laser. I have repeatedly emphasized that I know nothing about Physics. If one need to study with the same level of expertise in any topics mentioned in RAHE before they can put forward their opinion then I say many must keep out of any discussion. With nothing more than a precise, how on earth can you declare that "you now have the proof?" I have proof that stray light affects the laser. The rest is immaterial for me at the moment. |
|
#268
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
From: chung
Date: 6/28/2004 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: chung Date: 6/27/2004 10:18 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: wjDDc.118970$HG.109026@attbi_s53 S888Wheel wrote: From: chung Date: 6/25/2004 11:32 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: (Nousaine) Date: 6/23/2004 4:10 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Bromo wrote: On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case here on both sides. Let me ask again. If I'm not mistaken you have said that anything that can be heard can be measured or perhaps that was more like 'if you can't measure a difference than there would be nothing to hear' or something similar. I then asked exactly what measureable differences would explain amp/cable sound ..... and I don't recall a response. Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we haven't already done? It might be that no one knows. If you notice something - even if 10 people were to denounce you - it does not mean you know the mechanism, nor are you the expert on what measurements to make. So how do they "design" products then .... by making random choices? Are some people just lucky? Why would you ask the consumer how the designer opperates? I suggest you pose those questions to actual designers and let them speak for themselves. Uh, Tom's intent of asking those questions is to make the consumer think about the questions. It seems that when many consumers do so the objectivists get very upset with any eroneous conclusions they may draw. Really? It seems like some of the people who came up with the erroneous conclusions get unhappy when it was pointed out to them why those conclusions were erroneous. I did not sense any objectivists getting upset over these erroneous conclusions at all. The question is better answered by the designers and the consumer is better served if the answers come form the designers. If you would say they "listen" to them for validation then I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public? Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of debate you should have already considered this. Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the consumer, think. And question. I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game played on consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issues. Wait a minute. Tom was asking some very general questions on the design process. I would think that someone not being very technical can still give an educated guess. What is the point of guessing? I think such guesses are nothing more than shark food. Or start thinking about an answer. Why? Some of us would really prefer to get at the best sound we can get without becoming EEs. In that case, you probably don't want to know the answer anyway. If the answers are not simple and easy for the layman to get then I am not that interestred. So why are you even interested in Tom's question? Because it looked to me like bait for a shell game. In case you have forgotten, Tom's question was how did the designers design those products, if, as Mr Bromo suggested, no one knows how to make measurements that show those products work. If that was the question then it was based on a false premise. Bromo never claimed "no one knows how to make measurements that shows those products work." Seems like a legitimate and fair question to ask on this forum. Perhaps it does until one realizes it may be premised on a flase assumption.But then you are speaking for Tom here. I thought that wasn't even allowed. Oh well. And it can be considered a good rhetorical question, too. Personally I think good rhetorical question is an oxymoron. I think Tom is just waiting for one subjectivbist to give a technically inept answer so he can pounce on that person. Can you give some examples of Tom's "pouncing"? I'm sure I could if I wanted to do the search. If you want to think this is of no interest to Tom fine. Actually I believe that Tom would want to see some examples, too. Didn't Tom asked you for some similar examples? If it were truly a technically inept answer, would you object strongly if someone points that out? Hey if you guys enjoy subjectivist hunting on RAHE that's fine. We all have our hobbies. If one asks for an opinion and then attacks the opinion asked for that is simply baiting a sure win debate. Would you equate pointing out a technically wrong explanation as attacking the opinion? May be great for the ego but it does nothing to advance the hobby of audio. You think asking the proper questions, or refuting the technically wrong opinions, does nothing to advance the understanding of audio among hobbyists? Just today, Mr. Bromo learned that there are 16 information bits in CD samples, because people corrected him. I would say that his understanding of audio has been advanced tremendously. I noticed nobody took the bait. I noticed nobody else complained about Tom's questions either. The fact is it doesn't matter what answer he gets from the consumer. The question is one that should be posed to the designer. Why? Because they aren't guessing. It could lead to a discussion that would be relevant. Maybe you think discussions on someone's mistaken beliefs about another designers work and intentions is interesting. I don't. The consumer should be thinking about those questions, too. They "should'? Where is this rule of audiophilia written? Why would you interpret it as a rule? I am making a suggestion, and somehow you read that as me imposing a rule? Despite, or in addition to, what the designers may (or may not) tell you, the consumer should try to think independently and use his/her own reasoning skills. Well some often do. They get smacked around in RAHE for doing so sometimes. Care to cite examples? Not really. If you don't think it actually happens I'm not going to try to persuade you otherwise. People see what they want to see. That part is clear to me. I think it has been pretty obvious. Then examples would be easy to cite, no? |
|
#269
|
|||
|
|||
|
Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)
On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 18:56:32 GMT, "Chelvam"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:kOfFc.14135$IQ4.13844@attbi_s02... snip..snip.. Ok one more silly question. Can any of the panel or power light visible inside the player? Can we just kill this nonsense once and for all? CD players read discs using a light source which is *thousands* of times more intense than any possible external light source - even if you shone a car headlight directly at the disc, or left it in direct sunlight, you would not affect the datastream. This would be the case for white, red, blue, green or even infrared light. That's not so good for inquiring minds. Au contraire, it was enquiring minds who designed the CD system in the first place, and made sure that it is *extremely* rugged and reliable in use. More proof that something is going on beyond our conventional understanding of CD Player. What 'proof' are you talking about? Quoting again, from David W. Sukow, assistant professor of physics and engineering at Washington and Lee University, who has received the National Science Foundation's most prestigious award for research involving optics and lasers. "They are especially sensitive to stray light, which is unavoidable in many real situations; it may arise from a reflection of the laser beam off of your compact disc, for example. Then instead of a nice, steady beam of light coming out, the laser may start to oscillate and pulse erratically. This is bad, at least from a technological point of view." link http://home.wlu.edu/~sukowd/research.html Are you going to say he can't prove anything since DBT says otherwise. I'm going to say that if this effect occurs, you will be in no doubt that something went wrong, becuase the player will mute! You really must *not* drag up all these irrelevances, without showing that any of them actually occur in real players, and further, that they cause observable effects (e.g. BLER variations), and then of course - the only test that really matters - that they cause *audible* effects. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#270
|
|||
|
|||
|
Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)
"chung" wrote in message
... snip..snip.. Are you interested in audible degradations, or any measureable degradations? Neither, just want to know why my player B (if you remember that posting) sounds better than a more "modern" player. I want to know why I should be satisfied with a $500 player over ,say a Esoteric. |
|
#271
|
|||
|
|||
|
Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)
"Chelvam" wrote in message news:ApYFc.23835$IQ4.18277@attbi_s02...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:kOfFc.14135$IQ4.13844@attbi_s02... snip..snip.. Ok one more silly question. Can any of the panel or power light visible inside the player? Can we just kill this nonsense once and for all? CD players read discs using a light source which is *thousands* of times more intense than any possible external light source - even if you shone a car headlight directly at the disc, or left it in direct sunlight, you would not affect the datastream. This would be the case for white, red, blue, green or even infrared light. That's not so good for inquiring minds. More proof that something is going on beyond our conventional understanding of CD Player. Quoting again, from David W. Sukow, assistant professor of physics and engineering at Washington and Lee University, who has received the National Science Foundation's most prestigious award for research involving optics and lasers. "They are especially sensitive to stray light, which is unavoidable in many real situations; it may arise from a reflection of the laser beam off of your compact disc, for example. Then instead of a nice, steady beam of light coming out, the laser may start to oscillate and pulse erratically. This is bad, at least from a technological point of view." link http://home.wlu.edu/~sukowd/research.html Are you going to say he can't prove anything since DBT says otherwise. I am an optical engineer. Prof. Sukow is describing a phenomenon that has been known about lasers since time immemorial. The techniques for overcoming this problem have also been known from time immemorial, and are quite simple to implement in a system like a CD player. In terms of stray light in general, a diode laser is in fact remarkably insensitive to incoherent stray light for numerous reasons. The only potential problems occur when the laser has to eat some of its own output beam. The laser in a CD player is adequately stabilized, or the whole shebang would simply not work. The same technology goes into computer CD's, where even a single bit error would be disastrous. |
|
#272
|
|||
|
|||
|
Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)
"Chelvam" wrote in message
news:fKdGc.28263$XM6.7301@attbi_s53... I have proof that stray light affects the laser. The rest is immaterial for me at the moment. If I may interject, while you're considering that stray light can affect a laser in a laboratory, you might also consider that in a cd player, when the laser is reading the disc, you are upstream of the D/A convertors, therefore still in the digital domain. We're essentially talking about data acquisition. Any scattering of the light can only affect whether or not the 1s and 0s can be read by the laser. If they are, they are then converted into audio and there is no audible degradation (remember, this is digital--1 or 0, yes or no--there is no "kinda sorta"). If they are not read because of light scattering or any other reason, you get errors which are often corrected because of redundancy built into the system (oversampling), but if they're not read you don't get less hi-end or muddy bass--you get skips and chirps. From a technical standpoint I could see considering the green marker as a possible aid to a player that's mistracking (though I'd still be dubious), but to improve audio quality it makes absolutely no practical sense. Bill Balmer |
|
#273
|
|||
|
|||
|
Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)
"Georg Grosz" wrote in message
... snip..snip.. I am an optical engineer. Prof. Sukow is describing a phenomenon that has been known about lasers since time immemorial. The techniques for overcoming this problem have also been known from time immemorial, and are quite simple to implement in a system like a CD player. Okay, a well known problem addressed since time immemorial. But would you state the margin of error among different laser pick up is uniform among different manufacturers. Or could there be in some laser mechanism the acceptable margin of error is higher than the others and would that affect audio quality? In terms of stray light in general, a diode laser is in fact remarkably insensitive to incoherent stray light for numerous reasons. The only potential problems occur when the laser has to eat some of its own output beam. Has this problem been eliminated or does it still occur? And what are the best ways to prevent laser eating its own output? |
|
#274
|
|||
|
|||
|
Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)
On 5 Jul 2004 15:42:19 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote:
"Georg Grosz" wrote in message ... snip..snip.. I am an optical engineer. Prof. Sukow is describing a phenomenon that has been known about lasers since time immemorial. The techniques for overcoming this problem have also been known from time immemorial, and are quite simple to implement in a system like a CD player. Okay, a well known problem addressed since time immemorial. But would you state the margin of error among different laser pick up is uniform among different manufacturers. Or could there be in some laser mechanism the acceptable margin of error is higher than the others and would that affect audio quality? That's what quality control is for................... Such a player would exhibit a disastrous BLER, and would almost certainly not function correctly at all after a few hours of operation. Besides, as noted by Georg, this is not rocket science, it's a very well-known problem which is simply circumvented in practical applications. I have encountered the problem only once, when auditing the design of a relatively high-powered diode laser used for eye surgery. A simple modification to the drive circuitry, and to the physical construction of the optical output tube, removed the problem entirely. In terms of stray light in general, a diode laser is in fact remarkably insensitive to incoherent stray light for numerous reasons. The only potential problems occur when the laser has to eat some of its own output beam. Has this problem been eliminated or does it still occur? And what are the best ways to prevent laser eating its own output? It has been eliminated for all practical purposes - *especially* in mature technology like CD players, which have been around for more than 20 years. Basically, don't have reflective surfaces placed at angles which will reflect significant fractions of the laser energy back into the diode! Note that in a CD player, the read laser and sensor are placed at a significant angle to the disc surface, so that there's no chance of any significant fraction of the output energy returning to the source. I would advise against experimenting with small reflectors to provoke feedback, as you could easily destroy your laser diode - or your eyesight................ -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#275
|
|||
|
|||
|
Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 14:39:07 GMT, "Chelvam"
wrote: "Dick Pierce" wrote in message news:Fn5Gc.26634$Oq2.9414@attbi_s52... Chelvam intoned: snip.. Only if YOU are going to tell us that you studied the phenomenon with the same level of expertise that he did, instead of grasping at some quote without a clear understanding of the context in which he is making the statement, eh? You are missing the point. Those quotes were meant to establish that stray light in CD can affect the laser. They failed so to do, as the author made no mention of this being an effect observable in production players. I have repeatedly emphasized that I know nothing about Physics. So why do you keep arguing on technical points with the physicists on this newsgroup? If one need to study with the same level of expertise in any topics mentioned in RAHE before they can put forward their opinion then I say many must keep out of any discussion. No problem with putting forward your opinion, but you must *listen* to the rebuttals if you are to move the debate forward. With nothing more than a precise, how on earth can you declare that "you now have the proof?" I have proof that stray light affects the laser. The rest is immaterial for me at the moment. You have *no* proof that stray light affects lasers in commercially available CD players. You are taking the authors comments *entirely* out of context. Since you admit that you know nothing about physics, please refrain from drawing these incorrect conclusions from technical papers which you admit that you do not understand. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#276
|
|||
|
|||
|
Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)
Chelvam wrote:
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message news:Fn5Gc.26634$Oq2.9414@attbi_s52... Chelvam intoned: snip.. Only if YOU are going to tell us that you studied the phenomenon with the same level of expertise that he did, instead of grasping at some quote without a clear understanding of the context in which he is making the statement, eh? You are missing the point. Not at all. Zero. Those quotes were meant to establish that stray light in CD can affect the laser. I have repeatedly emphasized that I know nothing about Physics. If one need to study with the same level of expertise in any topics mentioned in RAHE before they can put forward their opinion then I say many must keep out of any discussion. No, just don't expect others who are knowlegable to always remain silent. With nothing more than a precise, how on earth can you declare that "you now have the proof?" I have proof that stray light affects the laser. The rest is immaterial for me at the moment. Stated differently, you apparently wish to continue to extract from context. |
|
#277
|
|||
|
|||
|
Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)
Thank you, your explanation is precise and useful. Appreciated.
"Cosworth" wrote in message ... "Chelvam" wrote in message news:fKdGc.28263$XM6.7301@attbi_s53... I have proof that stray light affects the laser. The rest is immaterial for me at the moment. If I may interject, while you're considering that stray light can affect a laser in a laboratory, you might also consider that in a cd player, when the laser is reading the disc, you are upstream of the D/A convertors, therefore still in the digital domain. We're essentially talking about data acquisition. Any scattering of the light can only affect whether or not the 1s and 0s can be read by the laser. If they are, they are then converted into audio and there is no audible degradation (remember, this is digital--1 or 0, yes or no--there is no "kinda sorta"). If they are not read because of light scattering or any other reason, you get errors which are often corrected because of redundancy built into the system (oversampling), but if they're not read you don't get less hi-end or muddy bass--you get skips and chirps. From a technical standpoint I could see considering the green marker as a possible aid to a player that's mistracking (though I'd still be dubious), but to improve audio quality it makes absolutely no practical sense. Bill Balmer |
|
#278
|
|||
|
|||
|
Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)
Cosworth said:
If they are not read because of light scattering or any other reason, you get errors which are often corrected because of redundancy built into the system (oversampling), An important technical nit: oversampling IS NOT "redundancy," nor does oversampling have ANYTHING whatsoever to do with error correction. They are two entirely different and essentialy unrelated processes. Error correction in CD's is implemented through a variety of algorithms, including EFM, CIRC and such, while oversampling is a method used in the implementation of filters and such. Two different processes. -- +--------------------------------+ | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | +--------------------------------+ |
|
#279
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 6/28/2004 3:58 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 8o1Ec.107786$2i5.20436@attbi_s52 S888Wheel wrote: From: chung Date: 6/27/2004 1:17 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: rXFDc.125025$Sw.22327@attbi_s51 And you feel that lumping the fools and the geniuses together as designers is fair to the geniuses? Are you going to be the arbitrator of who the fools and geniuses are? Are you so brilliant that you can make that determination for the world? Gee, when did I ever say that? It was a question not a statement. Assuming you are asking real questions and not rhetorical ones, the answers are no to each. Then why do you expect me to make the distinction? You don't have to be the arbitrator of fools and geniuses, or make determination for the world, in order to be able to make a distinction. We're clearly not communicating... I sense your strong sarcasm in the question regarding making determination for the world. Wonder how you arrive at that. I suggest reviewing the thread. I reviewed the thread. The amazing thing is that I was saying you were being generous when you called them designers. Seems like you disagree. OK, then, you were not being generous when you called them designers. You really believe they are all designers. You are entitled to your opinion. ***snip the rest*** |
|
#280
|
|||
|
|||
|
Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)
Chelvam wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... snip..snip.. Are you interested in audible degradations, or any measureable degradations? Neither, just want to know why my player B (if you remember that posting) sounds better than a more "modern" player. I want to know why I should be satisfied with a $500 player over ,say a Esoteric. Neither? If you want to find out why a CD player sounds better than another, you are interested in audible differences, which are caused by audible degradations. Seems like you should be doing controlled listening tests then to verify that there are audible differences first. They may be real differences, too, but then those differences are probably explainable without assuming there is any issue with lasers or jitter on the CD's. |
Linear Mode
