Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Black Colour and Jitter

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 2:42:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

If you think some audiophiles are weirdo for believing green pens, think
again. Apparently black reduces jitter.

"A black tray, to reduce the jitter and to increase the quality of the
burned CD". see
http://www.plextor.be/products/dvd_recorders/px-708a.as...

and

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/dvd-ro...


BTW, is it possible for black pen/marker to improve audio CD sound?
Physicists tell us that black absorbs almost all colours. It can absorb
stray red , green, white etc, etc light which may be still bouncing in the
CD.

p.s.
Disclaimer:
I assumes no reponsibility for injuries sufferred by engineers and
physicists while rolling on the floor laughing.

More about : black colour jitter

Anonymous
July 2, 2004 8:08:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 1 Jul 2004 22:42:55 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote:

>If you think some audiophiles are weirdo for believing green pens, think
>again. Apparently black reduces jitter.

No, it doesn't, but some weirdos have certainly *claimed* that it
does..............
>
> "A black tray, to reduce the jitter and to increase the quality of the
>burned CD". see
>http://www.plextor.be/products/dvd_recorders/px-708a.as...
>
>and
>
>http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/dvd-ro...
>
>
>BTW, is it possible for black pen/marker to improve audio CD sound?

No.

>Physicists tell us that black absorbs almost all colours. It can absorb
>stray red , green, white etc, etc light which may be still bouncing in the
>CD.

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.

>p.s.
>Disclaimer:
>I assumes no reponsibility for injuries sufferred by engineers and
>physicists while rolling on the floor laughing.

A very wise legal precaution..............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
July 3, 2004 11:34:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VLfFc.12652$MB3.11553@attbi_s04...
> On 1 Jul 2004 22:42:55 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote:
>
>
snip...snip..
>
> 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 reason why this question pops up often is because statements like yours
indirectly imply many music lovers who heard the difference were individuals
suffering from psychotic disorders . Not in so many words but that's the
conclusion one can make. we failed the DBT, our claim could not be
scientifically proven and therefor we must be hallucinating.

Many do not care much what the engineers say and they carry on with their
hobby believing in snake oil but for a few, like myself , who sincerely
believe that some claims by the peddlers of snake oil do not make sense to
our limited knowledge of 'how stuff work" join forums like RAHE to
understand 'why' or 'why not'.

That's the reason I pose questions or reference. As you said, green pen
tweek was started as a April fool joke. But why should Plextor and Pioneer
start another myth without any scientific data to back them up. Perhaps,
they do not know about DBT or perhaps they do not care about DBT. Or maybe
DBT is not a credible method that's recognised by the engineering authority.
(Plextor claims they do have lab test to prove.)

>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.

I am going experiment this by shining strong light on the CD, please tell me
if I should take any special precaution during the experiment. Secondly,
will the strong light cause any damage to the sensitive photo something in
the laser mechanism.

> >p.s.
> >Disclaimer:
> >I assume no reponsibility for injuries sufferred by engineers and
> >physicists while rolling on the floor laughing.
>
> A very wise legal precaution..............

Thank you.

> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
>
Related resources
Anonymous
July 3, 2004 11:34:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

This is a follow up to my earlier posting.

Despite my best effort I am unable to find the Plextor technical explanation
why black tray makes better copies. There was one press release by Plextor
which claimed that Plextor Lab tests found black tray reduces C1 errors.
(link http://www.plextor.com/english/news/press/pr05312002.ht... )

The other link
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Articles/Specific.asp?A...
iter+PX-W4824A&Series=0 gave an explanation which was somewhat similar to
green marker/pen unscientific explanation.

Being starved for a logical explanation, I surfed for more info and found
another Urban Legend. In this urban legend, the writer claimed copies burned
on a black CD sounded superior to the original. This legend carries no
monetary gain for his products. See
http://www.genesisloudspeakers.com/whitepaper/Black_CDs...

Most of what he said confirmed my initial findings about burned CDs. Being
someone who is slow to dismiss anything outright, I find it more than
coincidence that I found that burned CD sounded different. All these years,
my understanding of digital audio was you can make exact copies of the
original. I do not know about jitter, laughed at resonance control and
cones. These discovery were made because I heard them. ABX and DBT aside.

Disclaimer:
I assume no reponsibility for injuries sufferred by engineers and
physicists while rolling on the floor laughing.
Anonymous
July 3, 2004 6:55:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:34:19 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net>
wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:VLfFc.12652$MB3.11553@attbi_s04...
>> On 1 Jul 2004 22:42:55 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>snip...snip..
>>
>> 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 reason why this question pops up often is because statements like yours
>indirectly imply many music lovers who heard the difference were individuals
>suffering from psychotic disorders . Not in so many words but that's the
>conclusion one can make. we failed the DBT, our claim could not be
>scientifically proven and therefor we must be hallucinating.
>
Neither psychotic nor hallucinating - just a normal human being with
normal human failings.

>Many do not care much what the engineers say and they carry on with their
>hobby believing in snake oil but for a few, like myself , who sincerely
>believe that some claims by the peddlers of snake oil do not make sense to
>our limited knowledge of 'how stuff work" join forums like RAHE to
>understand 'why' or 'why not'.
>
This is fine, but you must understand that there is a huge difference
between "heard the difference" and "heard differently".

>That's the reason I pose questions or reference. As you said, green pen
>tweek was started as a April fool joke. But why should Plextor and Pioneer
>start another myth without any scientific data to back them up. Perhaps,
>they do not know about DBT or perhaps they do not care about DBT. Or maybe
>DBT is not a credible method that's recognised by the engineering authority.
>(Plextor claims they do have lab test to prove.)
>
I'm not aware of the details of the Plextor claim, so I won't comment
right now.

>>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.
>
>I am going experiment this by shining strong light on the CD, please tell me
>if I should take any special precaution during the experiment. Secondly,
>will the strong light cause any damage to the sensitive photo something in
>the laser mechanism.
>
This experiment carries in it all the failings that make green pens
work. You shine the light, you "hear" the difference. To perform this
experiment, you must put the CD player in another room, where somebody
else can shine the torch. He will turn the torch on and off in a
pattern that he will record as elapsed seconds from an agreed start
point. In the listening room, you must write down the times when you
consider you hear the effects of the torch being turned on and off. If
your on/off correlation is better than about 80%, then you have enough
evidence to move on to a real DBT experiment.

You won't do any damage, so go right ahead.

d
>> >p.s.
>> >Disclaimer:
>> >I assume no reponsibility for injuries sufferred by engineers and
>> >physicists while rolling on the floor laughing.
>>
>> A very wise legal precaution..............
>
>Thank you.
>
>> --
>>
>> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
>>

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Anonymous
July 3, 2004 9:10:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VLfFc.12652$MB3.11553@attbi_s04...
> On 1 Jul 2004 22:42:55 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote:
>
>
snip...snip..
>
> 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.
>

I have not got to this point yet but the more I look up for answers the more
it appears that DBT is NOT a definitive test to dismiss some unexplanable
claims in High End industry.

Here I am quoting some text found in the Optical Storage technology
Association. Among the salient ones are:-

"Does using lower CD-R recording speeds and lower capacity media produce
better sounding discs?

High speed CD-R writing often creates discs with low I3 and I11 signal
amplitudes (optical signals generated from the smallest and largest marks)
and 80 minute discs achieve their capacity by packing marks and lands more
tightly together. These result in reduced recording and playing margins and
sometimes lead to perceptible sound degradation, especially in older CD
audio players which may not employ equalization (signal boosting).
Consequently, many high speed recorder manufacturers recommend creating
audio discs at reduced writing speeds while some recorders even limit their
maximum speed to 24x when writing audio discs. In addition to slower
recording speeds, some manufacturers also suggest using 74 minute instead of
80 minute discs. Several of the latest recorders even offer special writing
modes which record audio discs with longer marks and lands than would
normally be the case, albeit at the expense of some capacity. For example,
an 80 minute disc written with longer marks and lands might only hold 74
minutes of audio and a 74 minute disc just 68 minutes of material."

see http://www.osta.org/technology/cdqa8.htm

and also,

"Several methods can be used to assess the quality of a written disc.
.......Each method is a piece of quality testing puzzle...."

and

"when assessing disc quality keep in mind the huge number of variable
involved. these include such things as the discs with different types,
batches and manufacturers, recording software and hardware in their many
varieties and versions, diverse recording conditions encountered.......
Consequently, judgement should be made on a relative rather than absolute
basis."

and

' Remember that CD-R ..are complex engineering marvels so when coming to
choosing among them .." in another word they are not saying all discs are
equal (mine).

In short, Golden eared audiophile do possess something that no DBT is going
to explain them.

p.s.
This does not mean that I support green pen or $10000 cable.
Anonymous
July 3, 2004 9:13:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <VLfFc.12652$MB3.11553@attbi_s04>,
Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

> On 1 Jul 2004 22:42:55 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote:
>
> >If you think some audiophiles are weirdo for believing green pens, think
> >again. Apparently black reduces jitter.
>
> No, it doesn't, but some weirdos have certainly *claimed* that it
> does..............
> >
> > "A black tray, to reduce the jitter and to increase the quality of the
> >burned CD". see
> >http://www.plextor.be/products/dvd_recorders/px-708a.as...
> >
> >and
> >
> >http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/dvd-ro...
> >
> >
> >BTW, is it possible for black pen/marker to improve audio CD sound?
>
> No.
>
> >Physicists tell us that black absorbs almost all colours. It can absorb
> >stray red , green, white etc, etc light which may be still bouncing in the
> >CD.
>
> 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.

Not only that, but the laser in a CD player operates in the infrared.
You have no idea how any particular *visible* dye (black, green, or
otherwise) behaves in the IR. Many are transparent.

Isaac
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 11:38:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote in message
news:cc241f01mhl@news1.newsguy.com...
> 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.

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!

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 12:16:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Chelvam <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote:
> "Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:VLfFc.12652$MB3.11553@attbi_s04...
> > On 1 Jul 2004 22:42:55 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> snip...snip..
> >
> > 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 reason why this question pops up often is because statements like yours
> indirectly imply many music lovers who heard the difference were individuals
> suffering from psychotic disorders .

Psychological bias towards hearing difference is not a sign of psychotic
disorder -- it's normal. How many times does *that* have to be explained?

--

-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
July 4, 2004 12:16:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Chelvam wrote:
> "Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:VLfFc.12652$MB3.11553@attbi_s04...
>> On 1 Jul 2004 22:42:55 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote:
>>
>>
> snip...snip..
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I have not got to this point yet but the more I look up for answers the more
> it appears that DBT is NOT a definitive test to dismiss some unexplanable
> claims in High End industry.

Are you saying DBT's may not reveal *audible* differences? Please give
us some examples.

>
> Here I am quoting some text found in the Optical Storage technology
> Association. Among the salient ones are:-
>
> "Does using lower CD-R recording speeds and lower capacity media produce
> better sounding discs?
>
> High speed CD-R writing often creates discs with low I3 and I11 signal
> amplitudes (optical signals generated from the smallest and largest marks)
> and 80 minute discs achieve their capacity by packing marks and lands more
> tightly together. These result in reduced recording and playing margins and
> sometimes lead to perceptible sound degradation, especially in older CD
> audio players which may not employ equalization (signal boosting).
> Consequently, many high speed recorder manufacturers recommend creating
> audio discs at reduced writing speeds while some recorders even limit their
> maximum speed to 24x when writing audio discs. In addition to slower
> recording speeds, some manufacturers also suggest using 74 minute instead of
> 80 minute discs. Several of the latest recorders even offer special writing
> modes which record audio discs with longer marks and lands than would
> normally be the case, albeit at the expense of some capacity. For example,
> an 80 minute disc written with longer marks and lands might only hold 74
> minutes of audio and a 74 minute disc just 68 minutes of material."
>
> see http://www.osta.org/technology/cdqa8.htm
>
> and also,
>
> "Several methods can be used to assess the quality of a written disc.
> ......Each method is a piece of quality testing puzzle...."
>
> and
>
> "when assessing disc quality keep in mind the huge number of variable
> involved. these include such things as the discs with different types,
> batches and manufacturers, recording software and hardware in their many
> varieties and versions, diverse recording conditions encountered.......
> Consequently, judgement should be made on a relative rather than absolute
> basis."
>
> and
>
> ' Remember that CD-R ..are complex engineering marvels so when coming to
> choosing among them .." in another word they are not saying all discs are
> equal (mine).

But do they sound the same? If not, don't you think that DBT's may be
the best tool to reveal audible differences?

>
> In short, Golden eared audiophile do possess something that no DBT is going
> to explain them.

Which is?

Seems like you are making a logical mistake here. You are assuming that
DBT's give negative results if there are differences in discs. That does
not follow at all. If there are truly audible differences, DBT is the
best tool to reveal those differences. DBT's do not explain why there
should be, or should not be, differences.

>
> p.s.
> This does not mean that I support green pen or $10000 cable.
>
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 12:17:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:34:19 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net>
wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:VLfFc.12652$MB3.11553@attbi_s04...
>> On 1 Jul 2004 22:42:55 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>snip...snip..
>>
>> 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 reason why this question pops up often is because statements like yours
>indirectly imply many music lovers who heard the difference were individuals
>suffering from psychotic disorders . Not in so many words but that's the
>conclusion one can make. we failed the DBT, our claim could not be
>scientifically proven and therefor we must be hallucinating.

Your language is unnecessarily pejorative. No suggestion of psychosis
has ever been made, it's simply that people who have not even *tried*
a DBT absolutely refuse to believe that what they heard wasn't
actually real. In fact, it's very easy to dempnstrate that the ear is
*easily* fooled. Did you think that the 'objectivists' *always*
thought the same? In reality, most of us were 'true believers', and
suffered Damascene revealtions which made us realise that sighted
listening is simply not useful.

>Many do not care much what the engineers say

Shame rteally, since it's the engineers who *design* all the stuff
they listen to...............

>and they carry on with their
>hobby believing in snake oil but for a few, like myself , who sincerely
>believe that some claims by the peddlers of snake oil do not make sense to
>our limited knowledge of 'how stuff work" join forums like RAHE to
>understand 'why' or 'why not'.

And this is all regularly explained. Somre things like The Seismic
Sink really do work, other things like green pens really do not - and
all for good reasons.

>That's the reason I pose questions or reference. As you said, green pen
>tweek was started as a April fool joke. But why should Plextor and Pioneer
>start another myth without any scientific data to back them up.

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.

> Perhaps,
>they do not know about DBT or perhaps they do not care about DBT. Or maybe
>DBT is not a credible method that's recognised by the engineering authority.
>(Plextor claims they do have lab test to prove.)

Beware of engineering claims, if you do not understand the *exact*
conditions under which these claims are made.

>>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.
>
>I am going experiment this by shining strong light on the CD, please tell me
>if I should take any special precaution during the experiment. Secondly,
>will the strong light cause any damage to the sensitive photo something in
>the laser mechanism.

Nope, you can shine any light available to you (even including a laser
pointer) at the disc. You will cause no damage, and there will be no
difference to the output.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 6:56:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 17:10:57 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net>
wrote:

>High speed CD-R writing often creates discs with low I3 and I11 signal
>amplitudes (optical signals generated from the smallest and largest marks)
>and 80 minute discs achieve their capacity by packing marks and lands more
>tightly together.

Nobody will doubt that.

>These result in reduced recording and playing margins and
>sometimes lead to perceptible sound degradation, especially in older CD
>audio players which may not employ equalization (signal boosting).

Nothing new. However, do you know what kind of "perceptible sound
degradation" is meant here?

>... Several of the latest recorders even offer special writing
>modes which record audio discs with longer marks and lands than would
>normally be the case, albeit at the expense of some capacity. For example,
>an 80 minute disc written with longer marks and lands might only hold 74
>minutes of audio and a 74 minute disc just 68 minutes of material."

How many of these recorders are still manufactured?
The only one I know of that was sold in quantities was the Yamaha F1.
Any others?

Norbert
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 7:01:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Isaac Wingfield" <isw@witzend.com> wrote in message
news:yOBFc.17388$MB3.3039@attbi_s04...

snip..snip..

> Not only that, but the laser in a CD player operates in the infrared.
> You have no idea how any particular *visible* dye (black, green, or
> otherwise) behaves in the IR. Many are transparent.

My undersanding is, visible light wavelenght is between 400nm to 700nm . CD
laser is something like 60nm. Why are you telling it is infrared?
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 7:02:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
news:cc6hc402rb0@news2.newsguy.com...
> On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:34:19 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net>
> 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. 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. You may also aware
that our ears inner part actually tuned to resonant upto 100Khz. however, we
don't hear them because the other part put a cap of roughly 20khz for
audible sound.

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. Sometimes, when one possesses vast knowledge of a subject they
tend not to look the otherway.

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.

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. I am not telling you would able to tell the audible difference but
eventually you will choose one over the other. 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.

> >That's the reason I pose questions or reference. As you said, green pen
> >tweek was started as a April fool joke. But why should Plextor and
Pioneer
> >start another myth without any scientific data to back them up. Perhaps,
> >they do not know about DBT or perhaps they do not care about DBT. Or
maybe
> >DBT is not a credible method that's recognised by the engineering
authority.
> >(Plextor claims they do have lab test to prove.)
> >
> I'm not aware of the details of the Plextor claim, so I won't comment
> right now.
>
There are a few interesting links I have posted and looking forward for
hearing an opinion from all of you guys.
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 7:04:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> writes:

> Chelvam <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote:
> > "Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:VLfFc.12652$MB3.11553@attbi_s04... [...]
> > > 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 reason why this question pops up often is because
> > statements like yours indirectly imply many music lovers
> > who heard the difference were individuals suffering from
> > psychotic disorders .
>
> Psychological bias towards hearing difference is not a
> sign of psychotic disorder -- it's normal. How many times
> does *that* have to be explained?

I think what we need is a simple experiment that anyone can
perform that demonstrates a percieved difference that can
straightforwardly be shown not to be there.

I know of several visual illusions: a white square on a
black background to compare with a same-size black square on
white background -- measure the squares with a ruler to
check -- a straight line through another thicker one that
makes the first one seem staggered -- a straight edge
immediately demonstrates the error -- and so on. It's also
easy to demonstrate that one's apparent field of view is far
wider than the reality using a playing card[1]. But the
auditory illusions I know of aren't so handy: the tritone
paradox, Risset and Shepard tones don't have that same shock
of recognition and, as with most of the illusions I can find
on the net, focus on pitch and/or rhythm perception, which
aren't really issues for us. The background hum that one
suddenly notices when it stops only tells us that we block
out persistent noise.

Can anyone come up with something?

[1] shuffle a deck of cards, and then pull out a card behind
your back. Staring straight ahead (if you so much as glance
towards the card you'd better try again) hold the card at
arms length just out of view behind you with the face
towards you. Gradually sweep your arm around towards the
point directly in front of you. At what point can you
discern the rank of the card? At what point can you tell
what colour it is?

--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn@cl.cam.ac.uk
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 7:06:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> writes:

> On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:34:19 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net>
> wrote:
> >I am going experiment this by shining strong light on the
> >CD, please tell me if I should take any special
> >precaution during the experiment. Secondly, will the
> >strong light cause any damage to the sensitive photo
> >something in the laser mechanism.
>
> Nope, you can shine any light available to you (even
> including a laser pointer) at the disc. You will cause no
> damage,

Just as long as he doesn't work for TRW <URL:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-00e.html >

> and there will be no difference to the output.

--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn@cl.cam.ac.uk
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 7:10:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D 2PFc.22349$7t3.17257@attbi_s51...

..............................
............................................................
> Your language is unnecessarily pejorative.

No Sir, never meant to be offensive, simply stating our failings.

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. And on what basis are you
telling Plexstor and Pioneer are simply trying to sell product. You mean to
say all the C1 errors reduction is simply mistatement. It could be bordering
fraudalent statement if they got no basis for what they are claiming. Maybe,
you can counter them with why C1 errors is insignificant in audio quality.

....

> Nope, you can shine any light available to you (even including a laser
> pointer) at the disc. You will cause no damage, and there will be no
> difference to the output.

I have to back off, can't do it in absolute DBT condition. But I believe Mr.
Sukow does lend a hand in what I was saying. see other posts.
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 11:01:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> writes:

> "Isaac Wingfield" <isw@witzend.com> wrote in message
> news:yOBFc.17388$MB3.3039@attbi_s04...
>
> snip..snip..
>
> > Not only that, but the laser in a CD player operates in the infrared.
> > You have no idea how any particular *visible* dye (black, green, or
> > otherwise) behaves in the IR. Many are transparent.
>
> My undersanding is, visible light wavelenght is between 400nm to 700nm . CD
> laser is something like 60nm.

Yow! I'm not sure if that really counts as soft X-rays, but
it's UV at least.

> Why are you telling it is infrared?

Because the wavelength is more like 780nm.

--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn@cl.cam.ac.uk
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 11:03:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:x1PFc.22347$7t3.1511@attbi_s51...

> > snip...snip..
> >>
> >
> > I have not got to this point yet but the more I look up for answers the
more
> > it appears that DBT is NOT a definitive test to dismiss some
unexplanable
> > claims in High End industry.
>
> Are you saying DBT's may not reveal *audible* differences? Please give
> us some examples.

No, DBT is the most reliable test to tell "audible" differences. Differences
within human hearing range. But at the same time, if you play same number,
one with say slightly increased treble, you will still find many to fail the
DBT.

snip

snip..
>
> But do they sound the same? If not, don't you think that DBT's may be
> the best tool to reveal audible differences?
>
yes and no. DBT is only for audible sound. but music extend beyond that.

> >
> > In short, Golden eared audiophile do possess something that no DBT is
going
> > to explain them.
>

> Which is?

That's the answer we all, including Oohashi, is looking for.

> Seems like you are making a logical mistake here. You are assuming that
> DBT's give negative results if there are differences in discs. That does
> not follow at all. If there are truly audible differences, DBT is the
> best tool to reveal those differences. DBT's do not explain why there
> should be, or should not be, differences.

Agreed.
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 11:03:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 17:10:57 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net>
wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:VLfFc.12652$MB3.11553@attbi_s04...
>> On 1 Jul 2004 22:42:55 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>snip...snip..
>>
>> 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.
>>
>I have not got to this point yet but the more I look up for answers the more
>it appears that DBT is NOT a definitive test to dismiss some unexplanable
>claims in High End industry.

Sure it is, and nothing you write below has any relevance to this.

>Here I am quoting some text found in the Optical Storage technology
>Association. Among the salient ones are:-
>
>"Does using lower CD-R recording speeds and lower capacity media produce
>better sounding discs?
>
>High speed CD-R writing often creates discs with low I3 and I11 signal
>amplitudes (optical signals generated from the smallest and largest marks)
>and 80 minute discs achieve their capacity by packing marks and lands more
>tightly together. These result in reduced recording and playing margins and
>sometimes lead to perceptible sound degradation, especially in older CD
>audio players which may not employ equalization (signal boosting).
>Consequently, many high speed recorder manufacturers recommend creating
>audio discs at reduced writing speeds while some recorders even limit their
>maximum speed to 24x when writing audio discs. In addition to slower
>recording speeds, some manufacturers also suggest using 74 minute instead of
>80 minute discs. Several of the latest recorders even offer special writing
>modes which record audio discs with longer marks and lands than would
>normally be the case, albeit at the expense of some capacity. For example,
>an 80 minute disc written with longer marks and lands might only hold 74
>minutes of audio and a 74 minute disc just 68 minutes of material."
>
>see http://www.osta.org/technology/cdqa8.htm
>
>and also,
>
>"Several methods can be used to assess the quality of a written disc.
>......Each method is a piece of quality testing puzzle...."

Actually, the two classic methods are a simple file compare of
original and copy, and the block error rate.

>and
>
>"when assessing disc quality keep in mind the huge number of variable
>involved. these include such things as the discs with different types,
>batches and manufacturers, recording software and hardware in their many
>varieties and versions, diverse recording conditions encountered.......
>Consequently, judgement should be made on a relative rather than absolute
>basis."
>
>and
>
>' Remember that CD-R ..are complex engineering marvels so when coming to
>choosing among them .." in another word they are not saying all discs are
>equal (mine).

No one ever has suggested that CD-Rs are all identical - even when the
original and the copy give bit-identical results. However, there is a
very easy test called the block error rate (BLER) which can
distinguish among them. A few of the better CD players can display the
BLER, and it's quick and simple to sort out the good, the bad and the
ugly for the writer and playback gear that you use, so that you can
very quickly find the best disc and the best writing rate for your own
collection of equipment. Note also that CD-Rs should not be left
exposed to sunlight for long periods, and that they should be
re-copied every ten years or so to ensure reliable archiving. That's
what we do at the IT section of the Bank where I work, where we burn
hundreds of CD-Rs every day.

>In short, Golden eared audiophile do possess something that no DBT is going
>to explain them.

Excuse me? The above are all *technical* points, and have nothing
whatever to do with the *audibility* of any problems. The
level-matched DBT is still the *only* reliable method of determining
whether a *real* audible difference exists - no matter how acute the
hearing of the listener. The only difference is that an experienced
listener with truly acute hearing will be able to hear things in a DBT
that you or I may not. This does not affect the validity of the test,
just the scatter of results for a wide range of listeners.

The type of 'golden eared audiophile' to whom you refer simply has a
vivid imagination, which is an entirely different matter! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 11:07:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Bob Olhsson" <olh@hyperback.com> wrote in message
news:muOFc.19868$MB3.10836@attbi_s04...

snip...snip..

> 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 wasn't prepared for this one. How much mass can a small layer of ink add?
Average CD is about 20gm to 30gm. Most of the so called audiophile recording
is much thicker than others.

It did cross my mind that if there was some way to balance the disc it would
probably improve the sound. I did use a small sticker at various spots on a
disc but unfortunately did not get any significant results under A/B tests
and dropped the idea. (got this idea while watching my mechanic balance the
car tyres - can you believe 5gm can make a difference?!)

However, I did another foolish thing by sticking a layer of some synthetic
materials on discs. I did hear a difference in the upper region ( bad
effect) but somehow unable to do A/B because when I peel them off the
reflective layer get ripped off. So I am stuck with several SACD with edge
peeling. Hopefully, the are the CD layer. In terms of price index (can't
remember the exact economic term)it cost about $100 per disc in this part of
region.

> 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!

That's a rather convenient way to dismiss what cannot be explained.
> --
> Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
> Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
> Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
> 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com
>
Anonymous
July 5, 2004 8:56:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4 Jul 2004 15:02:50 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
>news:cc6hc402rb0@news2.newsguy.com...
>> On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:34:19 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net>
>> 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.

Actually, you have that completely the wrong way round. When the
difference is *gross*, e.g. with loudspeakers, then DBTs are a waste
of time, as they'll give 100% results every time. OTOH, when the
difference is subtle, then a DBT is *essential* to determine if any
*real* sonic difference exists.

>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. You may also aware
>that our ears inner part actually tuned to resonant upto 100Khz. however, we
>don't hear them because the other part put a cap of roughly 20khz for
>audible sound.

IOW, the ear as a system is limited to 20kHz or thereabouts.

>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. Sometimes, when one possesses vast knowledge of a subject they
>tend not to look the otherway.

No need for either approach - just do the DBT, check the results, then
you will *know* if there really is an audible difference. It doesn't
matter what you thought *before* the test, as several very vocal
'golden ears' have discovered.

>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.

Excuse me? I have never said any such thing, nor has anyone else to my
knowledge. BTW, how do *you* know that there *is* a difference?

>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. I am not telling you would able to tell the audible difference but
>eventually you will choose one over the other. 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.

Actually, it's well known that on some players, the CD-R will sound
*superior* to the original - and for very good engineering reasons.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
July 5, 2004 8:56:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4 Jul 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote:

>"Isaac Wingfield" <isw@witzend.com> wrote in message
>news:yOBFc.17388$MB3.3039@attbi_s04...
>
>snip..snip..
>
>> Not only that, but the laser in a CD player operates in the infrared.
>> You have no idea how any particular *visible* dye (black, green, or
>> otherwise) behaves in the IR. Many are transparent.
>
>My undersanding is, visible light wavelenght is between 400nm to 700nm . CD
>laser is something like 60nm. Why are you telling it is infrared?

Wrong - the standard CD reading laser is 780nm. 60nm would be deep
ultraviolet, verging on X-ray! OK, it was probably a typo for 600nm,
but one can't resist a good feed line.................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
July 5, 2004 9:22:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4 Jul 2004 15:10:52 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:D 2PFc.22349$7t3.17257@attbi_s51...
>
>.............................
>...........................................................
>> Your language is unnecessarily pejorative.
>
>No Sir, never meant to be offensive, simply stating our failings.
>
>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.

>And on what basis are you
>telling Plexstor and Pioneer are simply trying to sell product.

They are in business, and corporate websites are *advertisements*, not
sources of engineering information.

> You mean to
>say all the C1 errors reduction is simply mistatement. It could be bordering
>fraudalent statement if they got no basis for what they are claiming. Maybe,
>you can counter them with why C1 errors is insignificant in audio quality.

You need to look at the details of the claims, and how they relate to
real-world situations. As to audibility, we come back to DBTs.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
July 5, 2004 9:32:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Hi,

In message <cc964n018es@news3.newsguy.com>, Chelvam
<chelvam@myjaring.net> writes
>"Isaac Wingfield" <isw@witzend.com> wrote in message
>news:yOBFc.17388$MB3.3039@attbi_s04...
>
>snip..snip..
>
>> Not only that, but the laser in a CD player operates in the infrared.
>> You have no idea how any particular *visible* dye (black, green, or
>> otherwise) behaves in the IR. Many are transparent.
>
>My undersanding is, visible light wavelenght is between 400nm to 700nm . CD
>laser is something like 60nm. Why are you telling it is infrared?

As an example, The Philips CQL10 laser has a wavelength of 790 nm in
air. That's in the near infra red, and out of the visible spectrum.
60nm would make put it in the extreme ultra-violet category, which is
not what you want for reading CDs!
--
Regards,
Glenn Booth
Anonymous
July 5, 2004 9:35:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"I think what we need is a simple experiment that anyone can
perform that demonstrates a percieved difference that can
straightforwardly be shown not to be there.
"

Here is one:

http://www.parmly.luc.edu/parmly/franssen.html

on a page of similar effects:

http://www.parmly.luc.edu/parmly/audio_demos.html

and with sound files to duplicate the effects. Read the first link above,
it will destroy forever the "illusion" that hearing is believing and that
our ears are the best device by which to make auditory conclusions.
Anonymous
July 5, 2004 9:37:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Jón Fairbairn" <jon.fairbairn@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<xuYFc.23075$%_6.6421@attbi_s01>...
> "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> writes:
>
snip..snip..

> > My undersanding is, visible light wavelenght is between 400nm to 700nm . CD
> > laser is something like 60nm.

> Yow! I'm not sure if that really counts as soft X-rays, but
> it's UV at least.

I meant to say 650nm, either way I am wrong.

> > Why are you telling it is infrared?
>
> Because the wavelength is more like 780nm.
July 5, 2004 9:43:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Chelvam wrote:
> "chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> news:x1PFc.22347$7t3.1511@attbi_s51...
>
>> > snip...snip..
>> >>
>> >
>> > I have not got to this point yet but the more I look up for answers the
> more
>> > it appears that DBT is NOT a definitive test to dismiss some
> unexplanable
>> > claims in High End industry.
>>
>> Are you saying DBT's may not reveal *audible* differences? Please give
>> us some examples.
>
> No, DBT is the most reliable test to tell "audible" differences. Differences
> within human hearing range.

Well, so what exactly is your complaint about DBT's?

> But at the same time, if you play same number,
> one with say slightly increased treble, you will still find many to fail the
> DBT.

First of all, can you back up that claim with some real examples?
Secondly, a slightly increased treble may simply be inaudible, depending
on how you define "slightly increased". No one ever says that DBT's are
as sensitive as measuring equipment. Third, are you saying that the
"slightly increased" treble can be reliably detected without the use of DBT?

>
> snip
>
> snip..
>>
>> But do they sound the same? If not, don't you think that DBT's may be
>> the best tool to reveal audible differences?
>>
> yes and no. DBT is only for audible sound. but music extend beyond that.

You are clearly conflicting yourself. Do you care about the part of
music that is inaudible? As regarding CD's, we know that there is no
information beyond 20 KHz captured.

>
>> >
>> > In short, Golden eared audiophile do possess something that no DBT is
> going
>> > to explain them.
>>
>
>> Which is?
>
> That's the answer we all, including Oohashi, is looking for.

OK, so you don't really have an answer. You are just looking for one.
But what is the question you want to answer? You may want to do a google
on Oohashi's article in this newsgroup.

>
>> Seems like you are making a logical mistake here. You are assuming that
>> DBT's give negative results if there are differences in discs. That does
>> not follow at all. If there are truly audible differences, DBT is the
>> best tool to reveal those differences. DBT's do not explain why there
>> should be, or should not be, differences.
>
> Agreed.

OK, so what exactly is your complaint about DBT's?
Anonymous
July 5, 2004 6:46:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 19:07:13 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net>
wrote:

>"Bob Olhsson" <olh@hyperback.com> wrote in message
>news:muOFc.19868$MB3.10836@attbi_s04...
>
>snip...snip..
>
>> 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 wasn't prepared for this one. How much mass can a small layer of ink add?

Less than 10 milligrams, but 'greens' always bring this up as a
possible cause of audible differences. Of course, no one has ever
actually been able to demonstrate that any such differences actually
exist......................

>Average CD is about 20gm to 30gm. Most of the so called audiophile recording
>is much thicker than others.

Utter rubbish! All CDs are the same nominal thickness, whether
standard, 'audiophile', or even gold-plated. Indeed, the Red Book
closely controls disc thickness.

>It did cross my mind that if there was some way to balance the disc it would
>probably improve the sound. I did use a small sticker at various spots on a
>disc but unfortunately did not get any significant results under A/B tests
>and dropped the idea. (got this idea while watching my mechanic balance the
>car tyres - can you believe 5gm can make a difference?!)
>
>However, I did another foolish thing by sticking a layer of some synthetic
>materials on discs. I did hear a difference in the upper region ( bad
>effect)

Oh really? Under DBT conditions?

>but somehow unable to do A/B because when I peel them off the
>reflective layer get ripped off.

The proper way to do this is with two copies of the disc.

> So I am stuck with several SACD with edge
>peeling. Hopefully, the are the CD layer. In terms of price index (can't
>remember the exact economic term)it cost about $100 per disc in this part of
>region.
>
>> 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!
>
>That's a rather convenient way to dismiss what cannot be explained.

Not at all, it's a simple truth - a good DAC (e.g. thre Benchmark
DAC-1) is *not* sensitive to transport variations - so long as all the
bits come out. You keep trying to come up with mysterious reasons for
audible differences - without actually proving that there *are* any
audible differences.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
July 6, 2004 8:48:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Chelvam <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote:
> "Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
> news:cc6hc402rb0@news2.newsguy.com...
> > On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:34:19 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net>
> > 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
Anonymous
July 6, 2004 8:02:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bob Olhsson <olh@hyperback.com> wrote:
> "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote in message
> news:cc241f01mhl@news1.newsguy.com...
> > 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
Anonymous
July 9, 2004 6:50:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bA5Gc.24266$MB3.22433@attbi_s04...
> On 4 Jul 2004 15:10:52 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> 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!
Anonymous
July 10, 2004 1:23:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 9 Jul 2004 14:50:09 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:bA5Gc.24266$MB3.22433@attbi_s04...
>> On 4 Jul 2004 15:10:52 GMT, "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> 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
May 8, 2012 6:58:33 AM

Absorbed by the object with its own different colors of light, but the black objects absorb all colors of light. The reason why you can see the red laser light when teacher use laser pens, still to the edges of the reasons (although the proliferation of very few), so your eyes can see the laser, not the laser reflection from the blackboard results.If you think that the blackboard does not absorb red light, then tilt your laser fired at the blackboard and then use technical means to observe - to see if there is no light reflected.I learned, I do not think there will be light reflected.
!