"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.

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

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.

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 |
+--------------------------------+

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

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

"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.)

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/

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

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...

"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)

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.

"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.

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 02:30:42 GMT, (TChelvam)
wrote:

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.

So why are *you* faling to quote what *they* said? Could it be because
they confirmed what *I* said, and which is such common knowledge that
other people saw no point in repeating it? How many people have to
tell you that CD lasers operate in the near infra-red, before you
believe it?

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.

It's a good basic principle to stop nonsense being propagated........

In
this context I provided Prof Sukow link to prove that stray light
exist and affects the laser.

Indeed it can, under *laboratory* conditions used to teach students
how *not* to design an optical system! You showed *no* evidence that
this effect has *ever* occurred in a production CD player.

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.

Where did you get *this* nonsense from? Every single bit of output
data could be corrected, and it would make *no* difference whatever to
the power lines, because *all* the data are reconstructed and run
through the error correction process. That's how the system *works*.
Please stop making up these fairy tales.

Now let's go back to Green Pen and Black tray.
Both, "allegedly" reduce stray light. Yes or No.

Probably not.

Q1. Is there stray light in the CD player?

Yes, a tiny fraction of a per cent.

Q2. Can stray light cause C1 errors?

Not in a production CD player.

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.

Q6. Can green absorb light?

It probably has no effect at 780nm.

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?

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.

It is a straight forward question. I am not asking about illusion or
Delusion.

The 'green pen effect' *is* an illusion.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"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!

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

"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.

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

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

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

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

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

McGurk effect - fascinating!

http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arn...k_english.html

"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.

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.

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

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

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

"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.

"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.

"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

"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

"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.

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

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.