Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
... To sell more product, perhaps? Just a thought. Remember, a corporate Web site is an ADVERTISEMENT, nothing more. Short of outright misrepresentation or fraud, they can say anything they want. And given that the burden of proof would rest with the government, they can get away with a lot of misrepresentation as well. I think now is time to take the bull by its horn. How about some engineers write to them to substantiate their claim? If only I had the expertise I would do so. Hope Mr. Atkinson is reading this, maybe he can publish the exchange in Stereophile Magazine. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
Chelvam wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:34:19 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote: snip..snip.. This is fine, but you must understand that there is a huge difference between "heard the difference" and "heard differently". I take it you mean to say that one must hear the difference under DBT condition. Why should DBT be the only authoritative test? Yes, it should be reliable when the difference is obvious but under subtle difference DBT cannot give any useful answer. Odd, then, that it hould be the test of choice for studies in perceptual psychology, not to mention more muundne things like product testing (including audio products). Actually, *sighted* tests are the ones taht cannot give a 'useful' answer when subtle differences are possible . They are simply too prone to bias. What intrigue me most about Oohashi's hypersonic project was the inability of the subjects to tell the difference, yet the brain scan shows we are aware of of the effect. Similarly, you are receiving far more visual input than you actually *perceive*. But if you can't 'tell the difference' in any conscious fashion, then ...you *can't tell the difference*. May I ask, have you ever approach this question the otherway round? Instead of proving there's no difference, approach it by saying there is a diiference. Actually a DBT coupled with good measurements, is the best way to 'prove a difference'. Do you understand the statistical nature of DBT results? I was for most of part on RAHE hardly engage in technical arguments because I do not have the necessary credential but when Mr. Sullivan or Mr. Pinkerton said all CD-R should sound the same I knew there was somethng we all missing. I know there is a difference. No, you *believe* there is a difference. And there may be. But the difference might not be due to what you think causes it. Just get a copy of a CD-R from anyone who claim that is inferior. Listen to the same CD alternating between original and CD-R for two weeks (No other CDs).You will reach a point you will feel something is not right with one of the CD. Or you might not. In any case, the effect is not necessarily due to anyting *other than* psychological factors. I am not telling you would able to tell the audible difference but eventually you will choose one over the other. Sighted? Yes, it's quite llikely you will. It may not be due to any real audible difference, though. Later, you can ask for someone to give you two copies of CD-R where one is superior and one is inferior, and go through the same exercise. Sir, you could do the same test, but only *leading the lilstener to believe that there were two different CDRs*. In fact you could be using the same CDR. And guess waht* there's a good chance you'd *still* form a preference for 'one or the other' -- even though they are the same CDR. Given that sort of well-documented psychological effect, *how* can you say that simply listening, sighted, is sufficient to determine the truth of the matter? -- -S. "We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's. Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." -- David Lee Roth |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
Chelvam wrote:
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message news:ad5Gc.25776$IQ4.10743@attbi_s02... And your point is? Without being too emotional consider other facts that we have discussed so far. why are there still many who believe in tweaks, different type CD-R for recording and etc, etc, despite overwhelming proof that none exist under DBT? What do you call these people? Part of the market churning structure. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
Chelvam wrote:
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message news:ad5Gc.25776$IQ4.10743@attbi_s02... And your point is? Don't you think it's rather unfair that you completely fail to provide a single quote of what I said, and then ask what my point is? What words of mine are you talking about? Without being too emotional consider other facts that we have discussed so far. why are there still many who believe in tweaks, different type CD-R for recording and etc, etc, despite overwhelming proof that none exist under DBT? Why are you asking me? I have no idea! Don't you think it's a wee bit unfair that you demand that I speak for their motivations? Why are there still many who believe fervently that the earth is flat? Don't ask me! Why did the President of South Africa make declarations about HIV that were contrary to known facts? Don't ask me! Why do more than 70% of Americans believe that Iragis had direct involvement in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001? Don't ask me! Why are there people who believe putting a dime on the corner of their loudspeakers "vastly" improves the sound? Don't ask me! What do you call these people? I call them people. Unlike others around here who prefer to engage in name-calling, erect strawman arguments and profer ad hominem attacks, I call them people. Unlike these others, I don't call them "subjectivists" or "objectivists," I don't declare that the objectivists only measure, never listen, state as a generalization that they say all amplifiers and wires and CDs sound identical. I don't make broad, unfounded statements boardering on the pejorative about people having "psycotic disorders" and suffering from "hallucinations," I don't substitute "delusion" for "illusion." I DO know, because I have observed it, that perfectly reasonable, healthy, honest and well-intentioned people have claimed that audible differences exist when they have been presented with absolutely IDENTICAL signals, and the ONLY thing they were aware of ahead of time was that they were going to be listening to two versions of the same thing. I have seen reasonable, healthy, honest and well intentioned people hear two signals that differed ONLY in level by about 0.5 dB declare emphatically that there were tremendous differences in "bass slam" or "depth" or any number of things, when the ONLY difference was a slight difference in amplitude. And I am sure you are aware of the fact that as long ago as the early 18th century, Jean Phillip Rameau described and quantified the ability of the ear, when presented with but two notes (such as two that are a fifth apart, to hear, unmistakably a third, an octave lower than the lower of the two notes. Is Jean Phillip Rameau claiming that people are having "psycotic disorders" and are hearing "hallucinations?" Are the number of organ builders who exploit this well known property of human hearing preying upon hapless psycotics? Are barber shop quartets, who use this known property, searching the country far and wide simply to torment those with "psycotic disorders" and deliberately triggering their "hallucinations" for their own macabre amusement? What do I call these reasonable, healthy, honest, well-intentioned people who regularily and reliably can hear differences in cases no difference exists, where they behave like the VAST majority of humans who are programmed for over-detection, where many years ago, people who jumped because they THOUGHT they heard something that wasn't there had a much higher survival rate than those that didn't jump enough, people who universally can hear any number of well- documented auditory illusions and KEEP hearing them, even when they are told they are hearing an illusion? I call them "human beings." I DON'T call them psycotic or hallucinatory. That not only be wrong, it would be insulting, wouldn't it? What do YOU call them? Someone here accused them of suffering from "psycotic disorders" and "hallucinations." I'm hoping that person did so from a position of ignorance of the facts and subleties of human auditory perception, such as the susceptibility to illusions and overdetection and a whole host of other properties that the practitioners and researchers in human auditory perception have known well for decades and, indeed, centuries. -- +--------------------------------+ | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | +--------------------------------+ |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
Bob Olhsson wrote:
"Chelvam" wrote in message ... BTW, is it possible for black pen/marker to improve audio CD sound? It's possible for it to change it although the change could as easily be attributed to a change in the mass distribution of the spinning disk as anything having to do with light. I suppose it could, since neither explanation holds much water. How much ink would you have to pile on a CD for the mass to change appreciably enough to affect audio output (and wouldn't it just cause massive pop/click/read failure-type errors at that point?) Some consider any subtitle change they hear to be an improvement while some of us consider such changes as merely evidence of a broken DAC design! Do any of you check your perception via bias-controlled comparison? -- -S. "We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's. Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." -- David Lee Roth |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
Chelvam wrote:
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message news:ad5Gc.25776$IQ4.10743@attbi_s02... And your point is? Without being too emotional consider other facts that we have discussed so far. why are there still many who believe in tweaks, different type CD-R for recording and etc, etc, despite overwhelming proof that none exist under DBT? What do you call these people? Why are there still many people who believe in lucky numbers, and play the lottery regualrly on that basis, despite the fact that the field of probabiliity and statistics has existed for several hundred years now, and has explained the basis of 'lucky numbers' for almost that long? -- -S. "We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's. Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." -- David Lee Roth |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
"Dick Pierce wrote"
I call them people. I call them people trying to justify cluttering their mailboxes with copies of certain Audio Magazines. (RIP Julian Hirsch.) |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
Chelvam wrote:
And your point is? Without being too emotional consider other facts that we have discussed so far. why are there still many who believe in tweaks, different type CD-R for recording and etc, etc, despite overwhelming proof that none exist under DBT? What do you call these people? Credulous. Illusions are tough things to overcome. When you try a tweak, and it seems to work, it isn't easy to recognize that you've been fooled. After all, what did your ears just tell you? Add to that the technological ignorance of most consumers--which makes it easy for proponents of this snake oil to concoct plausible-sounding justifications for their products--and you've got an urban myth. Another thing to remember is that somebody (actually, a lot of somebodies) has an economic incentive to convince you that these tweaks work. But nobody really has an economic incentive to convince you that they don't. So, for the average consumer (i.e., not the ones who read this newsgroup), it's a lot easier to hear the "pro" side than the "anti" side. And then there's ego. Let's face it, if you think of yourself as a "golden ear," your reputation among your audiophile friends is not enhanced by admitting that there's something you *can't* hear. That's why so many people buy into this stuff. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Get fast, reliable Internet access with MSN 9 Dial-up – now 2 months FREE! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm...ave/direct/01/ |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
Chelvam wrote:
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message ... snip...snip.. Get a dictionary, and look up these two words: 1) DElusion 2) ILlusion See the difference? What we are talking about are ILlusions. Everybody is subject to ILlusions. Yes, like David copperfield making the Statue of Liberty dissappear.-Illusion. But when only me alone can see Mr Shakti and Mr Green making the Statue dissappears, that's delusion. correct? Except you're not the only one--not by a long shot. The first time I heard a CD treated with the green pen, it sounded better to me. That was the beginning of my education in how easy it is for our ears to trick us. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Check out the latest news, polls and tools in the MSN 2004 Election Guide! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
Chelvam wrote:
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message ... snip...snip.. Get a dictionary, and look up these two words: 1) DElusion 2) ILlusion See the difference? What we are talking about are ILlusions. Everybody is subject to ILlusions. Yes, like David copperfield making the Statue of Liberty dissappear.-Illusion. But when only me alone can see Mr Shakti and Mr Green making the Statue dissappears, that's delusion. correct? No. That's still illusion. Now, when someone keeps ignoring the effects of perception bias... |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
"Chelvam" writes:
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message news:ad5Gc.25776$IQ4.10743@attbi_s02... And your point is? Without being too emotional consider other facts that we have discussed so far. why are there still many who believe in tweaks, different type CD-R for recording and etc, etc, despite overwhelming proof that none exist under DBT? I think to answer that one would have to have a deep understanding of the psychology of satisfaction, of the impact of an increasingly technological society on religious belief and the reactions of people faced with to them incomprehensible but powerful scientific knowledge, among other factors. Whatever the reason for the belief, the number of people who believe such things has no bearing on whether or not they are true. (I think Richard Feynman said that more eloquently, but I can't remember where). What do you call these people? Normal. The salt of the earth. Suckers. Delete as applicable. -- Jón Fairbairn http://www.chaos.org.uk/~jf/Stuff-I-dont-want.html (updated 2004-03-03) |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
The topic of the thread is "Black colour and Jitter".
All I wanted to know if Plextor's claim is tenable. Mr. Pinkerton said, echoing my word ".No, it doesn't, but some weirdos have certainly *claimed* that it does.............."., And he went on , I quote "None of which can possibly have *any* effect on the datastream being read off the disc. How many times does this have to be explained? The reflected beam from the reading laser is *hundreds* of times more intense than any possible reflection from the edge of the disc, and *thousands* of times more intense than any possible extraneous interfering source, and it only has to provide a zero/one discrimination. It's probably the most rugged and reliable data source ever invented." Was Mr.Pinkerton correct, or was his statement need to be qualified? Unfortunately, the other knowledgeable persons kept quite. Some did email me privately giving useful explanation why and why not. Some attacked me on other issues but not the issue of black colour and jitter. Mr. Pinkerton then went on "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." He did not explain why but he wanted this "nonsense" to be stopped. In this context I provided Prof Sukow link to prove that stray light exist and affects the laser. He also made other sweeping statement like , I quote again "Not true. Plextor and Pioneer are simply trying to sell product". The view of Plextor is the light reflected by the laser beam causes the existing of pollution of reflected light. The CIRC can easily correct C1 and C2 errors. However, while correcting MORE C1 errors the circuit may induce spikes on the power line which will travel to analogue output circuit. Now let's go back to Green Pen and Black tray. Both, "allegedly" reduce stray light. Yes or No. Q1. Is there stray light in the CD player? Q2. Can stray light cause C1 errors? Q3. Can CIRC and other algorithms correct C1 errors? Q4. Is it possible that too many C1 errors can induce spikes on the power line affecting analogue output circuit? Q5. Can black absorbs light? Q6. Can green absorb light? So as a layman, who is deprived of expertise in the field of physics, am I guilty of drawing a logical conclusion that it is possible that black tray or green pen may improve sound? It is a straight forward question. I am not asking about illusion or Delusion. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
news:mmNGc.35881$MB3.24603@attbi_s04... Chelvam wrote: snip..snip.. Yes, like David copperfield making the Statue of Liberty dissappear.-Illusion. But when only me alone can see Mr Shakti and Mr Green making the Statue dissappears, that's delusion. correct? Except you're not the only one--not by a long shot. The first time I heard a CD treated with the green pen, it sounded better to me. That was the beginning of my education in how easy it is for our ears to trick us. That reminds me. Now, I find the damping which I did a month or so did not sound as good as I heard it the first day. maybe my education has just begun. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:bA5Gc.24266$MB3.22433@attbi_s04... On 4 Jul 2004 15:10:52 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote: .... snip..snip... Not true. Plextor and Pioneer are simply trying to sell product, but back *any* transport with say a Benchmark DAC-1 and all such 'differences' disappear. Now I need a $1000 DAC to tell no difference. I'm simply pointing out that the Benchmark DAC-1 (at less than a tenth of what Mark Levinson will charge you) makes a mockery of such claims. Mr.Pinkerton this is a new link that I found which repaets almost every thing you said. Don't tell me you are behind it.. Excerpts:- Myth -You need a good transport to hear the best quality possible. Solution - Nonsense! What you need is any average transport with a digital output. Then all you need to do is slave it to the Master DAC 2004. Was it Ban who was looking for a DAC? Maybe Mr.Pinkerton would recommend this. http://www.lessloss.com/myths.html good luck! |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
On 9 Jul 2004 14:50:09 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:bA5Gc.24266$MB3.22433@attbi_s04... On 4 Jul 2004 15:10:52 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote: ... snip..snip... Not true. Plextor and Pioneer are simply trying to sell product, but back *any* transport with say a Benchmark DAC-1 and all such 'differences' disappear. Now I need a $1000 DAC to tell no difference. I'm simply pointing out that the Benchmark DAC-1 (at less than a tenth of what Mark Levinson will charge you) makes a mockery of such claims. Mr.Pinkerton this is a new link that I found which repaets almost every thing you said. Don't tell me you are behind it.. Certainly not - as it is a quite different concept from the Benchmark DAC-1, which I *do* recommend. The LessLoss DAC will *only* provide superior performance to a one-box player *if* the transport is slaved to it. This is not always possible, and requires the original player/transport to be modified, voiding any warranty. OTOH, everything I've said is common knowledge, so it's hardly surprising if you find it repeated elsewhere. Excerpts:- Myth -You need a good transport to hear the best quality possible. Solution - Nonsense! What you need is any average transport with a digital output. Then all you need to do is slave it to the Master DAC 2004. Alternatively, you could just use a good one-box player! Was it Ban who was looking for a DAC? Maybe Mr.Pinkerton would recommend this. http://www.lessloss.com/myths.html good luck! I still prefer the more elegant approach of the Benchmark, although the LessLoss is certainly *capable* of good performance if used with a suitable transport/player. Note also that the Benchmark is about half the price of the LessLoss DAC2004 - assuming that it doesn't cost too much to modify your existing player/transport. The LessLoss also adopts a rather 'high-end' approach to its advertising on the website, being very long on 'audiophile' chitchat and short on hard engineering measurements. Compare and contrast with the Benchmark site, and note that several top mastering engineers use a Benchmark DAC-1 as their ahh, benchmark DAC for listening to final mixdowns. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 02:30:42 GMT, (TChelvam) wrote: snip..snip.. The view of Plextor is the light reflected by the laser beam causes the existing of pollution of reflected light. The CIRC can easily correct C1 and C2 errors. However, while correcting MORE C1 errors the circuit may induce spikes on the power line which will travel to analogue output circuit. Where did you get *this* nonsense from? From another engineer. see http://www.plextor.be/technicalservi...ss%20of%20Writ ing.pdf Now let's go back to Green Pen and Black tray. Both, "allegedly" reduce stray light. Yes or No. Probably not. "Probably not" meaning you not absolutely sure. Q1. Is there stray light in the CD player? Yes, a tiny fraction of a per cent. So there is stray light. Q2. Can stray light cause C1 errors? Not in a production CD player. But stray light cause C1 errors, right? Q3. Can CIRC and other algorithms correct C1 errors? Yes - that's what it's *for*. Q4. Is it possible that too many C1 errors can induce spikes on the power line affecting analogue output circuit? No. Q5. Can black absorbs light? It may have no effect at 780nm. Can I say "may" is not so scientific. It should be "Yes" or "No" Q6. Can green absorb light? It probably has no effect at 780nm. Probably again. Not sure or maybe possible.? You are guilty of drawing an *illogical* conclusion. You are also guility of attempting to shore up that opinion with irrelevant data which you admit you do not understand. For now, I am all yours to be educated, but I will ask many more questions. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 18:08:42 GMT, "Chelvam"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 02:30:42 GMT, (TChelvam) wrote: snip..snip.. The view of Plextor is the light reflected by the laser beam causes the existing of pollution of reflected light. The CIRC can easily correct C1 and C2 errors. However, while correcting MORE C1 errors the circuit may induce spikes on the power line which will travel to analogue output circuit. Where did you get *this* nonsense from? From another engineer. see http://www.plextor.be/technicalservi...ss%20of%20Writ ing.pdf You are obviously referring to section 10 - About Write Quality. I find it interesting that, despite Plextor's claims of engineering expertise, no measurements whatever are shown to back a sweeping claim that such spikes are generated. I've never seen *any* engineering evidence that this is so - nor do I know of any engineering reason why it *should* be so. Let me repeat - the error correction circuitry does *not* work any harder when correcting errors, so where are these spikes supposed to be generated? As a matter of fact, while the article is a good 'dummies guide' to CD writing, it actually contains no measurements or statistics whatever, just lots of claims that how Plextor does things is superior. I suspect that it was written by the marketing department, with input from the engineers as to how things are done, but not how *much* they are done better by Plextor. It's also worth noting that Plextor is primarily a *software* company. This should be obvious from the content of the article, in which only the last paragraph out of 22 pages makes any reference to hardware. If you want *real* expertise regarding the hardware of CD replay, then go to Philips or Sony. Now let's go back to Green Pen and Black tray. Both, "allegedly" reduce stray light. Yes or No. Probably not. "Probably not" meaning you not absolutely sure. Absolute claims are usually made by people with no scientific or engineering background! If you are more comfortable with absolutes, then I'll say 'No' to the above. You may translate this to a more scuentific 'vanishingly small probability' if you like. Q1. Is there stray light in the CD player? Yes, a tiny fraction of a per cent. So there is stray light. See above. I'll rephrase to 'not enough to cause any problems - either measurable or audible'. To simplify - no. Q2. Can stray light cause C1 errors? Not in a production CD player. But stray light cause C1 errors, right? Not in any player of which I'm aware, hence not in a situation relevant to consumer audio. To simplify, no. Q3. Can CIRC and other algorithms correct C1 errors? Yes - that's what it's *for*. Q4. Is it possible that too many C1 errors can induce spikes on the power line affecting analogue output circuit? No. I note that you fail to comment on this statement, or the one above - perhaps I should stick to absolutes in your case! Q5. Can black absorbs light? It may have no effect at 780nm. Can I say "may" is not so scientific. It should be "Yes" or "No" You are completely wrong, as scientists and engineers hardly ever use absolute statements. Besides, your question was badly phrased and irrelevant, since anything *can* do almost anything else, under the right conditions. If you want to be scientific about it, then you also failed to define 'black'. My statement was absolutely correct. The Plextor tray may in fact be transparent in the infra-red, one would have to *measure* it to be sure. Certainly, a *shiny* 'black' tray will reflect quite a bit of light. BTW, almost all CD players use a black loading tray. BTW, just how does the light get to the black tray in the first place, since it's on the other side of the highly reflective CD from the laser? Q6. Can green absorb light? It probably has no effect at 780nm. Probably again. Not sure or maybe possible.? If you wish to be precise, there is no way to be sure without using a spectrometer. The behaviour of a green dye at 780nm is not predictable. The fact that a green pen has *never* been shown to have any effect whatever on the output of a CD player, is however a simpler bottom line to all this nonsense. You are guilty of drawing an *illogical* conclusion. You are also guility of attempting to shore up that opinion with irrelevant data which you admit you do not understand. For now, I am all yours to be educated, but I will ask many more questions. Fine, but try to make them a search for knowledge, rather than simply an attempt to shore up illogical preconceptions. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:SkmIc.58213$MB3.20786@attbi_s04...
It's also worth noting that Plextor is primarily a *software* company. This should be obvious from the content of the article, in which only the last paragraph out of 22 pages makes any reference to hardware. If you want *real* expertise regarding the hardware of CD replay, then go to Philips or Sony. Stewart, Plextor is a hardware company. In the computer industry, Plextor has long been regarded as an elite manufacturer of CD/DVD drives and burners. The only software developed by plextor that I am aware of is their bundled suite of tools. Erick |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
From another engineer. see
http://www.plextor.be/technicalservi...ss%20of%20Writ ing.pdf You are obviously referring to section 10 - About Write Quality. I find it interesting that, despite Plextor's claims of engineering expertise, no measurements whatever are shown to back a sweeping claim that such spikes are generated. I've never seen *any* engineering evidence that this is so - nor do I know of any engineering reason why it *should* be so. Let me repeat - the error correction circuitry does *not* work any harder when correcting errors, so where are these spikes supposed to be generated? As a matter of fact, while the article is a good 'dummies guide' to CD writing, it actually contains no measurements or statistics whatever, just lots of claims that how Plextor does things is superior. I suspect that it was written by the marketing department, with input from the engineers as to how things are done, but not how *much* they are done better by Plextor. It's also worth noting that Plextor is primarily a *software* company. This should be obvious from the content of the article, in which only the last paragraph out of 22 pages makes any reference to hardware. If you want *real* expertise regarding the hardware of CD replay, then go to Philips or Sony. This pamphlet was certainly written by a marketing person, trying to please as many of the potential customers as possible. It seems also in Japan you find a lot of "subjectivists" even between educated engineers. Many of the tweaks and snake-oil origin in this "country of the rising sun". It probably has to do with the utter rationality and control that covers the everyday life, so as a compensation.... After seing "Lost in Translation" nothing astonishes me any more. Good movie BTW, if you are an elderly guy, you can easily slip into Murray's part and enjoy midlife-crisis to the max, same is true for Daddy's little princesses. :-) Plextor used to build really the best CDR-burners available, but with DVD-burners they lost the high-tech image, as those are inferiour to Pioneer or even LG. In the DVD NGs there are lots of complaints. And they charge at least 50 to 100% more than the competitors. Seems they join the snake-oil companies. RIP -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
Ban wrote:
From another engineer. see http://www.plextor.be/technicalservi...ss%20of%20Writ ing.pdf You are obviously referring to section 10 - About Write Quality. I find it interesting that, despite Plextor's claims of engineering expertise, no measurements whatever are shown to back a sweeping claim that such spikes are generated. I've never seen *any* engineering evidence that this is so - nor do I know of any engineering reason why it *should* be so. Let me repeat - the error correction circuitry does *not* work any harder when correcting errors, so where are these spikes supposed to be generated? As a matter of fact, while the article is a good 'dummies guide' to CD writing, it actually contains no measurements or statistics whatever, just lots of claims that how Plextor does things is superior. I suspect that it was written by the marketing department, with input from the engineers as to how things are done, but not how *much* they are done better by Plextor. It's also worth noting that Plextor is primarily a *software* company. This should be obvious from the content of the article, in which only the last paragraph out of 22 pages makes any reference to hardware. If you want *real* expertise regarding the hardware of CD replay, then go to Philips or Sony. This pamphlet was certainly written by a marketing person, trying to please as many of the potential customers as possible. It seems also in Japan you find a lot of "subjectivists" even between educated engineers. Many of the tweaks and snake-oil origin in this "country of the rising sun". It probably has to do with the utter rationality and control that covers the everyday life, so as a compensation.... Plextor isn't a Japanese company, though, and as noted, they are mainly hardware vendors. Which doens't mean the marketing wing is innocent in this case ; Plextor used to build really the best CDR-burners available, but with DVD-burners they lost the high-tech image, as those are inferiour to Pioneer or even LG. In the DVD NGs there are lots of complaints. And they charge at least 50 to 100% more than the competitors. Seems they join the snake-oil companies. RIP That's a shame. Their CDRW drives never gave me a second of trouble. But excellent-performing CDRW drives seem to have become a commodity in the last few years. The no-name one (probably a Mitsubishi or Mitsui, I don't recall) that came with my new Dell works just as well as my old Plextors ever did. That sort of competition might have driven Plextor to some advertising extravagance in order to differentiate themselves from the pack. -- -S. "We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's. Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." -- David Lee Roth |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
On 13 Jul 2004 03:22:36 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Ban wrote: From another engineer. see http://www.plextor.be/technicalservi...ss%20of%20Writ ing.pdf You are obviously referring to section 10 - About Write Quality. I find it interesting that, despite Plextor's claims of engineering expertise, no measurements whatever are shown to back a sweeping claim that such spikes are generated. I've never seen *any* engineering evidence that this is so - nor do I know of any engineering reason why it *should* be so. Let me repeat - the error correction circuitry does *not* work any harder when correcting errors, so where are these spikes supposed to be generated? As a matter of fact, while the article is a good 'dummies guide' to CD writing, it actually contains no measurements or statistics whatever, just lots of claims that how Plextor does things is superior. I suspect that it was written by the marketing department, with input from the engineers as to how things are done, but not how *much* they are done better by Plextor. It's also worth noting that Plextor is primarily a *software* company. This should be obvious from the content of the article, in which only the last paragraph out of 22 pages makes any reference to hardware. If you want *real* expertise regarding the hardware of CD replay, then go to Philips or Sony. This pamphlet was certainly written by a marketing person, trying to please as many of the potential customers as possible. It seems also in Japan you find a lot of "subjectivists" even between educated engineers. Many of the tweaks and snake-oil origin in this "country of the rising sun". It probably has to do with the utter rationality and control that covers the everyday life, so as a compensation.... Plextor isn't a Japanese company, though, and as noted, they are mainly hardware vendors. Which doens't mean the marketing wing is innocent in this case ; Actually, Plextor (originally called Texel) *is* a Japanese company, although it may reasonably be regarded as a global corporation these days. It is of course also correct to say that they are a well-respected hardware company, I had something of a brainfart there since they are PC rather than audio specialists. Plextor used to build really the best CDR-burners available, but with DVD-burners they lost the high-tech image, as those are inferiour to Pioneer or even LG. In the DVD NGs there are lots of complaints. And they charge at least 50 to 100% more than the competitors. Seems they join the snake-oil companies. RIP That's a shame. Their CDRW drives never gave me a second of trouble. But excellent-performing CDRW drives seem to have become a commodity in the last few years. The no-name one (probably a Mitsubishi or Mitsui, I don't recall) that came with my new Dell works just as well as my old Plextors ever did. That sort of competition might have driven Plextor to some advertising extravagance in order to differentiate themselves from the pack. Could be. Certainly, the LG drives in my Evesham PC have a very low incidence of coaster generation! :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Auditory illusions ( Black Colour and Jitter)
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
"Chelvam" wrote in
news:Xl2Hc.40753$MB3.26650@attbi_s04: "Bob Marcus" wrote in message news:mmNGc.35881$MB3.24603@attbi_s04... Chelvam wrote: snip..snip.. Yes, like David copperfield making the Statue of Liberty dissappear.-Illusion. But when only me alone can see Mr Shakti and Mr Green making the Statue dissappears, that's delusion. correct? Except you're not the only one--not by a long shot. The first time I heard a CD treated with the green pen, it sounded better to me. That was the beginning of my education in how easy it is for our ears to trick us. That reminds me. Now, I find the damping which I did a month or so did not sound as good as I heard it the first day. maybe my education has just begun. The same sort of effect has been happening for years. When one built speakers in the 50's, the quality of sound was directly related to the number of hours spent hand rubbing the finish. r -- Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message
news:SkmIc.58213$MB3.20786@attbi_s04... On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 18:08:42 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote: Snip...snip.. The view of Plextor is the light reflected by the laser beam causes the existing of pollution of reflected light. The CIRC can easily correct C1 and C2 errors. However, while correcting MORE C1 errors the circuit may induce spikes on the power line which will travel to analogue output circuit. Where did you get *this* nonsense from? From another engineer. see http://www.plextor.be/technicalservi...%20Writing.pdf You are obviously referring to section 10 - About Write Quality. I find it interesting that, despite Plextor's claims of engineering expertise, no measurements whatever are shown to back a sweeping claim that such spikes are generated. I've never seen *any* engineering evidence that this is so - nor do I know of any engineering reason why it *should* be so. Let me repeat - the error correction circuitry does *not* work any harder when correcting errors, so where are these spikes supposed to be generated? As a matter of fact, while the article is a good 'dummies guide' to CD writing, it actually contains no measurements or statistics whatever, just lots of claims that how Plextor does things is superior. I suspect that it was written by the marketing department, with input from the engineers as to how things are done, but not how *much* they are done better by Plextor. It's also worth noting that Plextor is primarily a *software* company. This should be obvious from the content of the article, in which only the last paragraph out of 22 pages makes any reference to hardware. If you want *real* expertise regarding the hardware of CD replay, then go to Philips or Sony. After two weeks or so,I have received a reply from Plextor with a document of an independent testing done by another company not related in anyway to Plextor or their type of products. What I am looking here is two graphs measuring C1 errors in a black and white trays. Unfortunately, the document is confidential. Black colour certainly reduces C1 errors. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
The same sort of effect has been happening for years. When one built
speakers in the 50's, the quality of sound was directly related to the number of hours spent hand rubbing the finish. Today, the quality of the sound is directly proportional to the thickness of the component's front panel! grin Tom |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
In article ,
"Chelvam" wrote: After two weeks or so,I have received a reply from Plextor with a document of an independent testing done by another company not related in anyway to Plextor or their type of products. What I am looking here is two graphs measuring C1 errors in a black and white trays. Unfortunately, the document is confidential. Black colour certainly reduces C1 errors. If the document is confidential why'd they send it out to you, some random guy on the Internet? -- Tim |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
On 19 Jul 2004 22:41:57 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote:
After two weeks or so,I have received a reply from Plextor with a document of an independent testing done by another company not related in anyway to Plextor or their type of products. What I am looking here is two graphs measuring C1 errors in a black and white trays. Unfortunately, the document is confidential. Black colour certainly reduces C1 errors. If this were true, why would the document be confidential? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
"Rich.Andrews" wrote in message
news:T9SKc.120970$IQ4.77838@attbi_s02... "Chelvam" wrote in news:Xl2Hc.40753$MB3.26650@attbi_s04: "Bob Marcus" wrote in message news:mmNGc.35881$MB3.24603@attbi_s04... Chelvam wrote: snip..snip.. Yes, like David copperfield making the Statue of Liberty dissappear.-Illusion. But when only me alone can see Mr Shakti and Mr Green making the Statue dissappears, that's delusion. correct? Except you're not the only one--not by a long shot. The first time I heard a CD treated with the green pen, it sounded better to me. That was the beginning of my education in how easy it is for our ears to trick us. That reminds me. Now, I find the damping which I did a month or so did not sound as good as I heard it the first day. maybe my education has just begun. The same sort of effect has been happening for years. When one built speakers in the 50's, the quality of sound was directly related to the number of hours spent hand rubbing the finish. Now if you applied the above philosophy to certain violins you might have something of value. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
"Timothy A. Seufert" wrote in message
... In article , "Chelvam" wrote: After two weeks or so,I have received a reply from Plextor with a document of an independent testing done by another company not related in anyway to Plextor or their type of products. What I am looking here is two graphs measuring C1 errors in a black and white trays. Unfortunately, the document is confidential. Black colour certainly reduces C1 errors. If the document is confidential why'd they send it out to you, some random guy on the Internet? Yes, Tim I expected that from you and more like to come from others. I only receive the relevant page showing actual measurements done and not the whole document and that too after the email got diverted to US, Japan and Denmark. Maybe, they shared their product development papars due to numerous emails sent by me. Maybe, they don't just preach but actual conduct the experiments. maybe, I pleaded ignorance and explained truthfully why I am seeking the data. If you write to them I am sure they will share it with you. Whatever being said so far, Plextor does have the technical data to back up their claim. I am not an engineer to benefit from the papers nor is my ego going to be affected by proving or disproving that black tray actually reduces C1 errors (jitter?). What the document did not disclose is how the overworked CIRC circuit affects the analogue output. Even then, Plextor already admitted that a separate power supply for digital and analogue section may make no difference in quality from the amount of the C1 errors. I am in the midst of getting that part, too unless someone her on RAHE could provide the theory. Since this thread started, i did many comparisons and I only find the good copies that I have made so far sounded superior in my car but not in my home system ( I can't tell the difference except the earlier once made at high speed).And now, I think maybe that is due to the inferior design of car cd players. Just thinking out loud. For now, 1. Contrary to earlier assertion, we have data to back up that black colour tray actually reducing C1 errors. 2.The only reason why black tray reduces C1 errors is probably due to stray lights. 3. I did not hear any different using green pen tweak, and that was maybe due to the fact my system got a jitter buster and separate power supply for digital and analogue and a good DAC. But that cannot be conclusive, because the other guy who heard the difference was using a Accuphase player which I believed do have separate power supply too. BTW, he heard the difference in my ssytem, too!! 3. Now, if only I could get some explanation how an overworked circuit produces spikes that affect the analogue circuit output. Mr. Pinkerton does make sense that the CIRC circuit engages at all time. Will try to get some answers from reliable sources. 4.I am just the messenger, so don't shoot me. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
"Chelvam" wrote in
: [ ...lots of stuff removed...] 3. Now, if only I could get some explanation how an overworked circuit produces spikes that affect the analogue circuit output. Mr. Pinkerton does make sense that the CIRC circuit engages at all time. Will try to get some answers from reliable sources. Mr. Pinkerton is correct - the error correction circuitry is always active. Most of the time it's just examining the data looking for errors but the algorithm is such that the act of looking for errors is almost identical to the act of correcting errors. Substituting correct values for incorrect ones should not cause additional noise. If you substitute "under-designed" for "overworked", maybe the picture becomes clearer. There may be cases where power is poorly decoupled (generally no ground and power planes in consumer equipment), allowing moderate amounts of digital switching noise to be generated, even during correction-free operation. However, that noise is occurring at frequencies much higher than audio so there should be no audible impact under steady state conditions. A correction *might* alter the signature of the noise slightly though, perhaps to the point where it can be measured. More likely, as in much of the high-end esoterica, a (barely) possible problem is "exposed" and the fringe element or the fringe element's marketing department rushes in to fix it. -- JS |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
"Chelvam" wrote:
After two weeks or so,I have received a reply from Plextor with a document of an independent testing done by another company not related in anyway to Plextor or their type of products. What I am looking here is two graphs measuring C1 errors in a black and white trays. Unfortunately, the document is confidential. Black colour certainly reduces C1 errors. Was this a retrospective test? i.e. they happened to have different color plastics and noted that C1 errors were lower on the unit with the black tray? If I were to come up with results such as those you mention above--which make little sense technically--my first act would be to verify that the change was due entirely to the color of the tray. I'd certainly investigate thoroughly. Were the different colors obtained by using different fillers in the plastic? Could the different chemical composition of the different trays be responsible and not the actual color. Would painting the white tray black give the same results? Does a variety of different colors produce different results? Was the experiment run by swapping the two trays in the same player, or did they have 2 players which supposedly differed only in the color of the trays? In other words, I would pin down this phenomenon until I was sure that I was observing what I thought I was observing. There is a tendency of researchers to stop the minute they get interesting results and publish. That's what happened to Pons and Fleishmann when the did their cold fusion experiment. They were so eager to publish that they didn't carefully verify their results. (They probably didn't really want to.) Scientific researchers are first and foremost human beings, with all the unfortunate tendencies of our species. They want to discover things. They don't really want to find out that nothing is there. Do you remember "facilitated communication with the autistic?" An autistic child would be placed before a typewriter and the researcher would gently support his arm. He would then be able to type out his thoughts. Some pretty awful things were typed in that fashion, including accusations of abuse by parents. Proper science would suggest that the phenomenon be carefully replicated, and the possibility that the researcher was influencing the results eliminated. It wasn't. It took hardly any effort at all to disprove facilitated communication, but that effort was not made for well over a year. In the meantime, lives were ruined and children were removed from their parents. Lots of bad things happened. I can't say that I blame the researchers too much. Can you imagine what it must be like to devote your working life to trying to get through to children whose minds are locked up tight? It must have seemed like sunrise after a long night when facilitated communication was "discovered." I'm not sure I would have done proper reasearch either. Norm Strong |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:%VxLc.134695$a24.115304@attbi_s03... In other words, I would pin down this phenomenon until I was sure that I was observing what I thought I was observing. There is a tendency of researchers to stop the minute they get interesting results and publish. That's what happened to Pons and Fleishmann when the did their cold fusion experiment. They were so eager to publish that they didn't carefully verify their results. (They probably didn't really want to.) Scientific researchers are first and foremost human beings, with all the unfortunate tendencies of our species. They want to discover things. They don't really want to find out that nothing is there. This is a bit off topic but having been a scientific researcher, I must take some offense. Even established scientists, with little for personal gain by publishing, have to consider the matter of "priority", so they are in effect pushed into a rush to judgment situation. I'm certain that we all have much to thank for to all those researchers who also first and foremost human beings simply doing what we have to do in order to stay alive. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter
In article ,
"Chelvam" wrote: "Timothy A. Seufert" wrote in message ... In article , "Chelvam" wrote: After two weeks or so,I have received a reply from Plextor with a document of an independent testing done by another company not related in anyway to Plextor or their type of products. What I am looking here is two graphs measuring C1 errors in a black and white trays. Unfortunately, the document is confidential. Black colour certainly reduces C1 errors. If the document is confidential why'd they send it out to you, some random guy on the Internet? Yes, Tim I expected that from you and more like to come from others. Well, you must admit it sounds more than a little suspicious. "I have been given proof of X but I cannot reveal it!" Hmmmm.... Keep in mind that one thing which isn't helping your verisimilitude is that companies which wish to transmit confidential information to outsiders typically protect themselves by having said outsiders sign a NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement). NDAs prohibit any discussion of the material at all with outsiders who are not also covered by NDA. What you just did would violate any NDA I've ever seen, and leave you open to legal retribution. If you really did get sent a document, and did not sign an NDA, you are not in any way legally bound to protect information they claim is "confidential", and all you have to worry about is copyright. There are "fair use" exceptions in copyright law to cover reasonable sharing of such information for research and education. I only receive the relevant page showing actual measurements done and not the whole document and that too after the email got diverted to US, Japan and Denmark. Maybe, they shared their product development papars due to numerous emails sent by me. Maybe, they don't just preach but actual conduct the experiments. maybe, I pleaded ignorance and explained truthfully why I am seeking the data. If you write to them I am sure they will share it with you. I have a better idea. I have no idea who you wrote to and what you said to get them to cough up anything, assuming that actually happened. Why don't you bypass all that, write back to the contact who sent you the material, and ask nicely if it's OK to share it because you're being questioned about it? For now, 1. Contrary to earlier assertion, we have data to back up that black colour tray actually reducing C1 errors. "We" don't. YOU claim to, but the rest of us have nothing. 2.The only reason why black tray reduces C1 errors is probably due to stray lights. Nonsense. Have you ever heard of the difference between correlation and causation in experiment results? Or considered the possibility that bad experiment design and/or execution created false correlation, leaving the question of causation moot? That brings me back to why the "I've got PROOF! but I can't show you" thing gives me pause. We need access to the supposed proof in order to figure out whether it's actually a proof. BTW, ideally one should get the whole report for such critical examination, not just the table of data. 3. I did not hear any different using green pen tweak, and that was maybe due to the fact my system got a jitter buster and separate power supply for digital and analogue and a good DAC. No, it was due to the fact that the green pen tweak doesn't work and never did. But that cannot be conclusive, because the other guy who heard the difference was using a Accuphase player which I believed do have separate power supply too. BTW, he heard the difference in my ssytem, too!! I'm sure he thought he did. Did either of you set up a double blind test to really find out? 3. Now, if only I could get some explanation how an overworked circuit produces spikes that affect the analogue circuit output. Mr. Pinkerton does make sense that the CIRC circuit engages at all time. Will try to get some answers from reliable sources. You've gotten answers from reliable sources already, but you're resisting listening to them because the answers aren't what you want to hear. BTW, I applaud your willingness to pursue other sources, but you need to work a lot on critical evaluation, because you seem to accept without hesitation anything which appears to support ideas you'd like to be true. Worse yet, sometimes you read things into material you find which actually aren't there. 4.I am just the messenger, so don't shoot me. I'll answer with another cliche: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. -- Tim |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Black Colour and Jitter (amended)
Dear Tim, the original version did not get thru the Moderators.
"Timothy A. Seufert" wrote in message ... : snip...snip.. Yes, Tim I expected that from you and more like to come from others. Well, you must admit it sounds more than a little suspicious. "I have been given proof of X but I cannot reveal it!" Hmmmm.... Either, I am just sharing by disclosing what I think is relevant to this group. I suggest you review the thread. I did suggest anyone with the necessary credential to confront Plextor. None did. Keep in mind that one thing which isn't helping your verisimilitude is that companies which wish to transmit confidential information to outsiders typically protect themselves by having said outsiders sign a NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement). NDAs prohibit any discussion of the material at all with outsiders who are not also covered by NDA. What you just did would violate any NDA I've ever seen, and leave you open to legal retribution. I am prepared for it. I am familiar with NDA . And it is not entirely correct to say ALL NDAs prohibit any discussion of the material at all with outsiders. It depends on the terms of the agreement. For what purpose, how much, on need to know basis, etc.etc.. but that is not relevant to RAHE. If you really did get sent a document, and did not sign an NDA, you are not in any way legally bound to protect information they claim is "confidential", and all you have to worry about is copyright. There are "fair use" exceptions in copyright law to cover reasonable sharing of such information for research and education. Yes, Sir. I am familiar with copyright law, too. On the other hand, I believe in "my word is my bond". I gave them an undertaking/assurance and it would be MORALLY wrong for me to breach them. I have a better idea. I have no idea who you wrote to and what you said to get them to cough up anything, assuming that actually happened. Doubts in your mind? Our basis of engaging in RAHE is based on being honest with each others' views and opinions. If you are implying me of making up some documents to win a trivial point in an open forum, then I say it is not my nature. But now on, I will be more cautious with others' opinions here on RAHE since they too may manufacture evidence to suit an argument or rely on established principles/theories without experimenting anymore for being afraid of being proven wrong. Under normal circumstances, I would not discuss an issue which I can't substantiate for fear of being ridiculed but among friends and persons I respect I tend to throw caution in the air. I respect your contribution but for you to keep on doubting the documents in my possession. In that case, it is no longer an issue of "Black colour and jitter". Why don't you bypass all that, write back to the contact who sent you the material, and ask nicely if it's OK to share it because you're being questioned about it? For a person who has taken the initiative to get Plextor talk, don't you think that I would have done that too.? For now, 1. Contrary to earlier assertion, we have data to back up that black colour tray actually reducing C1 errors. "We" don't. YOU claim to, but the rest of us have nothing. Speaking for all in RAHE? I know at least one posting in support of Green Pen Tweak. 2.The only reason why black tray reduces C1 errors is probably due to stray lights. Nonsense. Have you ever heard of the difference between correlation and causation in experiment results? Or considered the possibility that bad experiment design and/or execution created false correlation, leaving the question of causation moot? What would you do if Plextor actually publishes their experiments and developments papers? You will repeat the same but will never conduct the experiment yourself nor confront anyone for making false claim. Oh just remembered, somebody already explained in details why they don't do such things under a different thread. That brings me back to why the "I've got PROOF! but I can't show you" thing gives me pause. We need access to the supposed proof in order to figure out whether it's actually a proof. Don't ask me. Plextor is the one claiming so. Someone claimed they did not publish any data to back up the claim. Now, I have seen the data but that's not good enough. BTW the company which conducted the measurements specializes in some measurements equipments, if my google search is pointing to the same company referred to the document. Most of the info is in Japanese. BTW, ideally one should get the whole report for such critical examination, not just the table of data. I was bit disappointed for not getting the part on "CIRC circuit induces spikes", still trying to figure out who will be the best person to answer the question. I am not questioning your credibility but I was hoping they actual designer or whoever making such claims to provide some proof. The main difficulties I am having is getting the correct terms to phrase the questions otherwise to get a response is next to impossible. I'm sure he thought he did. Did either of you set up a double blind test to really find out? Yes, I did but couldn't tell the diff. in his case, he wasn't cooperative but he is still using them. Anyway it no longer a question of hearing the difference but whether black tray or green pen actually reduces jitter or C1 errors. 3. Now, if only I could get some explanation how an overworked circuit produces spikes that affect the analogue circuit output. Mr. Pinkerton does make sense that the CIRC circuit engages at all time. Will try to get some answers from reliable sources. You've gotten answers from reliable sources already, but you're resisting listening to them because the answers aren't what you want to hear. What is so wrong about one wanting to explore all the avenues before being certain about something. Many do not want to become the "punching bag" of some experts here for saying things contrary to physics. BTW, I applaud your willingness to pursue other sources, but you need to work a lot on critical evaluation, because you seem to accept without hesitation anything which appears to support ideas you'd like to be true. Worse yet, sometimes you read things into material you find which actually aren't there. You must be referring to Sukow's link. 4.I am just the messenger, so don't shoot me. I'll answer with another cliche: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. You are absolutely right. keep away form all trouble. Many messengers are learning that the hard way. Its a mad world out there. |