Found this on Audio Asylum. What do you guys think?

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Iss...alityCheck.htm

On 15 Nov 2004 03:54:12 GMT, B&D wrote:

Found this on Audio Asylum. What do you guys think?

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Iss...alityCheck.htm

Reads like a scam to me, but who knows? Since he gives no clue as to
what the 'reprocessing' comprises, it's impossible to predict what
he's actually doing - if anything beyond simple copying.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"B&D" wrote in message ...
Found this on Audio Asylum. What do you guys think?

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Iss...alityCheck.htm

The whole write-up reeks of snake oil.

It's pretty standard high endery. "I got a secret new technology - day
and night difference, aided by a liberal dose of scientisim without nary
an listening alone test in sight to seperate the marketing from the
reality. It should be easy enough to make a copy system that changes a
recording just enough to rise above the threshold of audibility and
declare the difference "better". People who sell wire with black box
networks attached do this already. It would be intresting to put his cdr
and the original on a bench and measure the differences in signal. It
would be intresting to record from the same mic feed to his box and to
standard cd and then do both the listening alone and signal testing.

Found this on Audio Asylum. What do you guys think?

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Iss...alityCheck.htm

B&D wrote in :

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Iss...alityCheck.htm

A crock of steaming c**p is the first thing that comes to mind, followed
immediately by "there's a sucker born every minute".

-- JS

wrote:
It's pretty standard high endery. "I got a secret new technology - day
and night difference, aided by a liberal dose of scientisim without nary
an listening alone test in sight to seperate the marketing from the
reality. It should be easy enough to make a copy system that changes a
recording just enough to rise above the threshold of audibility and
declare the difference "better". People who sell wire with black box
networks attached do this already. It would be intresting to put his cdr
and the original on a bench and measure the differences in signal. It
would be intresting to record from the same mic feed to his box and to
standard cd and then do both the listening alone and signal testing.

Found this on Audio Asylum. What do you guys think?

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Iss...alityCheck.htm

I would do a bit-by-bit comparison of the original vs the tweaked one.
If they are bit-identical, then there is no difference. Or least one can
copy the original to a CD-R and accomplish the same result,so why spend
the money? If they are *not* bit identical, then something bad has been
done to the original to generate the new copy. That's really NOT
high-fidelity.

In other words, there is really no reason to believe in this product.

B&D wrote:
Found this on Audio Asylum. What do you guys think?

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Iss...alityCheck.htm

But this is meant as a parody, or do you really believe every word? He makes
fun with the readers just like the guy who first came up with the green pen.
At least that can only be.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

On 11/15/04 11:16 PM, in article , "Ban"
wrote:

B&D wrote:
Found this on Audio Asylum. What do you guys think?

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Iss...alityCheck.htm

But this is meant as a parody, or do you really believe every word? He makes
fun with the readers just like the guy who first came up with the green pen.
At least that can only be.

I don't believe it at all. The guy that owns the "technology" is dead
serious about it.

"B&D" wrote in message
...
On 11/15/04 11:16 PM, in article , "Ban"
wrote:

B&D wrote:
Found this on Audio Asylum. What do you guys think?

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Iss...alityCheck.htm

But this is meant as a parody, or do you really believe every word? He
makes
fun with the readers just like the guy who first came up with the green
pen.
At least that can only be.

I don't believe it at all. The guy that owns the "technology" is dead
serious about it.


There is one piece of truth in the article. He makes the claim that DAT
mastering tapes sound better than the CD's made from them.

Also, I have noticed that some CD's I have duplicated on my computer seem to
require very slow, even below 1x read speeds when i have error correction
turned on. The copies seem to read just fine at 40x. Seems to me my dvd
writer creates CD-R's that are less error prone than the originals.

There is no doubt that computer writers can be advantageously used to
recover scratched and otherwise damaged CD and write new clean copies.

Maybe the only thing he really has is a good CD burner and some nice jitter
control software.

At 599 it is cheaper than buying a computer to duplicate discs if that's all
you want a burner for.

Carl