Ultrabit Platium Disk Treatment
renaiss...@i-plus.net
Treatment. Has anyone tried this? The price is outrageous for a two
ounce bottle of stuff ($65) plus $8.00 shipping. It can't cost the guy
more than a buck to produce it. What other disk treatments are
available? What I am thinking is that if I paid over $70 for a small
bottle of disk teatment, I at least would believe I heard some
improvement!!!!
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
Do a web search for "Barry Ornitz" and "CD Optical Impedance
Matching Fluid" to find the origin of this substance.
Note especially that it was published on April 1st.
jwvm
Its snake oil. "Magic" treatments like this cannot have a significant
impact on sound given the binary nature of digital data on good media.
CDs have error correction that should result in perfect reproduction
in media that is not overly dirty or damaged. Even with uncorrectable
errors, data hiding is usually effective in preventing obvious sound
degradation. If this fails, the results are painfully obvious with
very choppy playback or no sound at all. It is usually possible to
clean or repair CDs that cause these sorts of problems, but there is
no need to use such overpriced gimmicks.
Sonnova
(in article <6ecrj2F...@mid.individual.net>):
Its been pretty much established that the only thins that can affect CD sound
from the disc is a system that introduces lots of jitter or a system that
drops so many bits that the error-correction is always in interpolation. Then
of course there's physical damage to the disc itself, but that's another
discussion. So unless this liquid can address either jitter or bit errors,
it's impossible for it to do anything. And even if it did address on or the
other (or both) of these conditions (unlikely), I suspect that it's audible
result would diminish as one used better and better CD players. I say this
because excessive jitter and high bit error rates are usually associated with
cheap players.
At one time, I was convinced that that silly green pen improved CD sound but
a D-B test proved conclusively that it did NOTHING.
I suspect that Mr, Harley has been, once again, tripped-up by his own
methodology and prejudices.
Peter Wieck
> Note especially that it was published on April 1st.
Amen.
Note additionally that Barry has a sense of humor that is both dry and
irreverent.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Arny Krueger
news:6ecrj2F...@mid.individual.net
> Robert Hartley, Absolute Sound, gave rave reviews to the
> Ultrabit Disk Treatment. Has anyone tried this? The
> price is outrageous for a two ounce bottle of stuff ($65)
> plus $8.00 shipping.
Hmm, is this an ad for it?
Is this the Enjoythemusic.com review of it?
http://www.thehornshoppe.com/ultrabit_platinumPDF.pdf
Is this the manufacturer's white paper justifying it?
http://www.thehornshoppe.com/SOMEREFLECTIONSADZ.doc
> It can't cost the guy more than a
> buck to produce it. What other disk treatments are
> available?
Supposedly, the developer of Ultrabit also developed Finyl for Vinyl LPs.
and Finyl the Digital Solution.
> What I am thinking is that if I paid over $70
> for a small bottle of disk teatment, I at least would
> believe I heard some improvement!!!!
As you know, that's how snake oil works. People have to justify their
investment, so they perceive an irrelevant benefit.
Steven Sullivan
So far no luck finding these together on google groups or google web.
Anyone got a link?
--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
> dpierce.cartchunk....@gmail.com wrote:
> > Do a web search for "Barry Ornitz" and "CD Optical Impedance
> > Matching Fluid" to find the origin of this substance.
> > Note especially that it was published on April 1st.
>
> So far no luck finding these together on google groups or google web.
The original was posted back in 1990: that may have
been before the reorganization of the rec.audio hierarchy,
and many news archive servers may not have it. Check out
any of them that have archived plain ol' rec.audio or, before
that. net.audio.
I have the original posting around somewhere. along with
Jim Johnston's April Fool's joke about using a green pen
on the edge of CD's, posted around the same time.
Steven Sullivan
I'd love to see both of those. GOogle's archive just isn't
up to snuff.
---MIKE---
Green. He advertised a green pen called "Balonium" for about $3.
---MIKE---
>>In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
>> (44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')
Codifus
> dpierce.ca...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Jul 18, 8:42 pm, renaissance...@i-plus.net wrote:
>>> Robert Hartley, Absolute Sound, gave rave reviews to the Ultrabit Disk
>>> Treatment. Has anyone tried this? The price is outrageous for a two
>>> ounce bottle of stuff ($65) plus $8.00 shipping. It can't cost the guy
>>> more than a buck to produce it. What other disk treatments are
>>> available? What I am thinking is that if I paid over $70 for a small
>>> bottle of disk teatment, I at least would believe I heard some
>>> improvement!!!!
>
>> Do a web search for "Barry Ornitz" and "CD Optical Impedance
>> Matching Fluid" to find the origin of this substance.
>
>> Note especially that it was published on April 1st.
>
> So far no luck finding these together on google groups or google web.
>
> Anyone got a link?
>
and found this Stereophile article;
http://stereophile.com/reference/590jitter/
They tried a product called CD spotlight by Audio Prism and were
surprised to find that it did make a difference.
They then backed it up with a technical explanation as to why the
difference was probably there. I am very much inclined to believe it.
I also believe in bi-wiring. I've tried it and I'm never going back. Now
when I see a speaker with only one pair of speaker terminals, I tend to
look down on it. Before I tried biwiring, I didn't really care. This
notion some believe that bi-wiring was invented to sell more speaker
cable is total bull. The perfect analogy is how many people also believe
that the US carmakers were in cahoots with the oil companies to produce
big giant gas guzzling SUVs. Well, here we are. Oil is at $140/barrel
and all US carmakers are on life support while all the oil companies are
enjoying the biggest profits of any company ever. Staggering could
better describe their profit margin.
I also have Densen's DeMagic CD. Again, many people say its effect is
bogus. I've tried it and definitely noticed a difference. The effect was
most apparent only the 1st time I used it, though. After that, I've used
it every couple of months and haven't noticed a change. Perhaps I
haven't given my electronics enough time to get magnetically out of
alignment. It's preventive maintenance, then.
I do not subscribe to Monster Cables belief in speaker wire. While I
would believe that speaker wire makes a difference, the difference is
incredibly small. Monster Cable is a perfect example of
way-over-engineering. I'll just buy any run of the mill 12 gauge speaker
cable and appreciate that difference.
So, what does that make me, and Audiophool or an Audiophile?
CD
Norman M. Schwartz
> Back in the 80s there was a publication (CD Review?) but out by Wayne
> Green. He advertised a green pen called "Balonium" for about $3.
>
Some of the history can be read here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/49381-6-green-tweak
Steven Sullivan
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > dpierce.ca...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Jul 18, 8:42 pm, renaissance...@i-plus.net wrote:
> >>> Robert Hartley, Absolute Sound, gave rave reviews to the Ultrabit Disk
> >>> Treatment. Has anyone tried this? The price is outrageous for a two
> >>> ounce bottle of stuff ($65) plus $8.00 shipping. It can't cost the guy
> >>> more than a buck to produce it. What other disk treatments are
> >>> available? What I am thinking is that if I paid over $70 for a small
> >>> bottle of disk teatment, I at least would believe I heard some
> >>> improvement!!!!
> >
> >> Do a web search for "Barry Ornitz" and "CD Optical Impedance
> >> Matching Fluid" to find the origin of this substance.
> >
> >> Note especially that it was published on April 1st.
> >
> > So far no luck finding these together on google groups or google web.
> >
> > Anyone got a link?
> >
> I googled "CD Optical Impedance Matching Fluid"
> and found this Stereophile article;
> http://stereophile.com/reference/590jitter/
> They tried a product called CD spotlight by Audio Prism and were
> surprised to find that it did make a difference.
> They then backed it up with a technical explanation as to why the
> difference was probably there. I am very much inclined to believe it.
It's CD *Stoplight*, and Harley's 'technical explanation' for the
supposedly audible effect, is nonsense.
> I also believe in bi-wiring. I've tried it and I'm
> never going back.
Another 'tweak' with essentialy no basis for audible difference.
> I also have Densen's DeMagic CD. Again, many people say its effect is
> bogus. I've tried it and definitely noticed a difference. The effect was
> most apparent only the 1st time I used it, though. After that, I've used
> it every couple of months and haven't noticed a change. Perhaps I
> haven't given my electronics enough time to get magnetically out of
> alignment. It's preventive maintenance, then.
It's more likely sighted bias.
> So, what does that make me, and Audiophool or an Audiophile?
No comment.
Steven Sullivan
LOL. The 'Anonymous' author of that first post, is me. I started that
thread.
Sonnova
(in article <g68d2...@news4.newsguy.com>):
Also known as "THE green pen". In a double blind test using multiple copies
of a number of CDs where one was treated and one wasn't, the consensus was
that there was no discernible difference between "treated" and non-treated
copies of the same CD.
>
>> I also believe in bi-wiring. I've tried it and I'm
>> never going back.
>
> Another 'tweak' with essentialy no basis for audible difference.
Amen.
Codifus
prove that they do indeed make a difference. The difference is there but
is quite subtle.
Now, for the Densen Demagic CD, it is very very easy to prove that it
works. This is how you do it:
Requirements? A pair on NON magnetically shield speakers.
Expose those speakers to a strong magnetic field like your CRT based TV
and I guess any high powered electric motor, like a vacuum cleaner. When
I say expose, I mean to place those speakers very near these
magnetically strong devices while they are on of course.
Now, place the speakers right next to each other and playback any source
in mono.
With the speakers right next to each other, when you listen to that mono
source you should get a strong sense of the image being midway between
the speakers.
Because the speakers have been exposed to a strong magentic field, they
probably don't have a strong image, if any at all. The sound is all
there but you can't localize it with your eyes closed. It seems to be
everywhere and nowhere at the same time.
Next step: playback the densen demagic CD at the loudest volume you can
tolerate. You probably want to leave the room while its playing for its
duration of 3 minutes.
Now, do the mono test again. You should now have a very strong image of
the sound coming from midway between the speakers.
And there you have it.
CD
Sonnova
(in article <g68lp...@news4.newsguy.com>):
Does this make sense to anyone? The whole idea of magnetically shielded
speakers is that their magnetic fields don't affect the electron beam in the
CRT, not the other way around. IOW, the shielded speakers protect the TV.
There's nothing in the TV that would affect the speakers. Also, I cannot
believe for a moment that one could get the speaker magnets close enough to a
large electric motor to actually affect the field in the voice-coil gap in
any way. If I'm missing something, please let me know.
jwvm
<snip>
>
> Now, for the Densen Demagic CD, it is very very easy to prove that it
> works. This is how you do it:
>
> Requirements? A pair on NON magnetically shield speakers.
> Expose those speakers to a strong magnetic field like your CRT based TV
> and I guess any high powered electric motor, like a vacuum cleaner. When
> I say expose, I mean to place those speakers very near these
> magnetically strong devices while they are on of course.
Given the very strong magnets that are found in loudspeakers, it is
hard to understand why speakers would be affected by external magnetic
fields from these types of sources.
>
> Now, place the speakers right next to each other and playback any source
> in mono.
>
> With the speakers right next to each other, when you listen to that mono
> source you should get a strong sense of the image being midway between
> the speakers.
>
> Because the speakers have been exposed to a strong magnetic field, they
> probably don't have a strong image, if any at all. The sound is all
> there but you can't localize it with your eyes closed. It seems to be
> everywhere and nowhere at the same time.
>
Sounds like the manufacturer of these speakers needs to find a better
source for the permanent magnets that they use.
> Next step: playback the densen demagic CD at the loudest volume you can
> tolerate. You probably want to leave the room while its playing for its
> duration of 3 minutes.
>
> Now, do the mono test again. You should now have a very strong image of
> the sound coming from midway between the speakers.
>
> And there you have it.
Not really. This implies that speaker magnets can be restored by
generating "magic" AC fields via the voice coil, a very remarkable
discovery if true. Normally, AC fields are used to demagnetize
materials that have become magnetized such as tape recorder heads.
Arny Krueger
news:g68lp...@news4.newsguy.com
> Now, for the Densen Demagic CD, it is very very easy to
> prove that it works. This is how you do it:
>
> Requirements? A pair on NON magnetically shield speakers.
> Expose those speakers to a strong magnetic field like
> your CRT based TV and I guess any high powered electric
> motor, like a vacuum cleaner. When I say expose, I mean
> to place those speakers very near these magnetically
> strong devices while they are on of course.
Of course?
Of course not!
Both speakers and electric motors do have very strong magnetic fields inside
of them, but their external fields are necessarily relatively small compared
to the intense magnetic fields inside. A large external magnetic field would
represent a gross loss of efficiency.
> Because the speakers have been exposed to a strong magnetic field, they
> probably don't have a strong image, if any at all. The sound is all
> there but you can't localize it with your eyes closed. It seems to be
> everywhere and nowhere at the same time.
This paragraph is truly amazing. In my 14 plus years on Usenet and 47 plus
years as an audiophile, I've never seen so many different things naively
conflated into one big hairball of myth.
If you do anything to significantly diminish the internal magnetic field of
a loudspeaker driver, there is a very strong effect, the speaker driver
looses efficiency.
One of the last things to go would be the imaging.
The most common means by which a speaker's internal magnetic field is
weakened is probably heating of the magnet assembly by heat lost by the
driver during extended operation at high levels and high powers. Repeated
application of large, short pulses can reduce the strength of the permanent
magnets in a loudspeaker.
The first thing to go during sustained use would probably be any ferrofluid,
and the second thing to go would be the magnetic field strength. Loss of
either will cause the speaker to play more softly with a given amount of
power being applied to it. This is well-known to be a cumulative,
irreversible effect.
If a speaker's permanent magnets (which are obviously not totally permanent
but can be harmed by abuse) lose some of their strength, the usual fix is to
remove the voice coil and recharge the magnet assembly with a special
machine that will be described a little bit more below. That's what works!
> Next step: playback the densen demagic CD at the loudest volume you can
> tolerate. You probably want to leave the room while its playing for its
> duration of 3 minutes.
> Now, do the mono test again. You should now have a very strong image of
> the sound coming from midway between the speakers.
Now we have a pure anti-scientific myth being propounded. While AC current
can demagnetize a permanent magnet, there is no means for using AC current
to re-magnetize it. An AC current strong enough to demagnetize a speaker
magnet would probably first burn out the voice coil. An AC current strong
enough to demagnetize a speaker magnet constitutes abuse of the speaker.
The myth being propounded here is that if abuse harms a loudspeaker, further
abuse of the identical same kind will repair it. Unprecedented!
BTW, speaker magnet assemblies are *not* magnetized by putting current
through the voice coil. The magnetic assembly is "charged" by a special
machine that uses large, relatively long electrical pulses. The magnetism is
applied by a special jig that engages the pole pieces. The voice coil is
installed once the magnetic assembly is charged.
Arny Krueger
> I Goggled "CD Optical Impedance Matching Fluid"
> and found this Stereophile article;
>
> http://Stereophile.com/reference/590jitter/
> They tried a product called CD spotlight by Audio Prism
> and were surprised to find that it did make a difference.
Two words: sighted evaluations.
> They then backed it up with a technical explanation as to
> why the difference was probably there.
Actually, the cited article starts out with a statement of acute reviewer
bias:
"The promise of "perfect sound forever," successfully foisted on an
unwitting public by the Compact Disc's promoters, at first seemed to put an
end to the audiophile's inexorable need to tweak a playback system's front
end at the point of information retrieval. First, the binary nature (ones
and zeros) of digital audio would apparently preclude variations in playback
sound quality due to imperfections in the recording medium. "
It is a well-known and generally-agreed upon fact that the binary nature
(ones and zeros) of digital audio *does* preclude variations in playback
sound quality due to imperfections in the playback of the media, in
well-engineered playback equipment. By 1990 when the article was written. CD
players that reliably performed at or near the theoretical limits of the CD
format were widely available for less than $150.
Key words: "foisted on".
dictionary.reference.com/search?q=foist&r=66
Foist
1. to force upon or impose fraudulently or unjustifiably (usually fol. by on
or upon): to foist inferior merchandise on a customer.
So the reviewer starts out his supposedly unbiased review by saying that
well-known scientific facts are actually frauds.
There does seem to be a fraud at hand, but its not the well-known scientific
facts. ;-)
> I am very much inclined to believe it.
I'm very much inclined to disbelieve authors who make controversial claims
like this without some pretty solid evidence to back them up. The rest of
the article is full of assertions and evidence of a nature that is
well-known to be totally unreliable.
> I also believe in bi-wiring. I've tried it and I'm never
> going back. Now when I see a speaker with only one pair
> of speaker terminals, I tend to look down on it.
The absolutely minimal difference that bi-wiring provides has been proven
both mathematically and by clearly demonstrated means of a variety of both
electronic tests and listening tests. The test that tells the story to me
best involves measuring the voltage across the speaker terminals for the
same loudspeaker system, wired normally, and bi-wired. There are
differences, but they are vanishingly small.
> Before I tried biwiring, I didn't really care. This notion some
> believe that bi-wiring was invented to sell more speaker
> cable is total bull.
Actually, there is quite a bit of scientific evidence to support the
conclusion that bi-wiring mainly provides a financial benefit to the people
who sell it. However, the benefit is not restricted to just selling more
cable. Mislead consumers will also choose speakers with added terminals that
cost next to nothing to add, over speakers that are well-engineered and lack
superfluous hardware.
> The perfect analogy is how many
> people also believe that the US carmakers were in cahoots
> with the oil companies to produce big giant gas guzzling
> SUVs.
I live in the Detroit area, worked as an automotive engineer, and still have
a ton of inside connections. The analogy between the two theories presented
above is indeed perfect because both theories are bogus. The car companies
needed no conspiracy with the oil companies to induce them to produce SUVs.
They just wanted to sell vehicles. SUVs fit through a number of legal
loopholes and allowed the car companies to sell mechanically crude truck
chassis that the Asian producers were not producing, for a premium over far
more sophisticated car chassis. As consumers started demanding SUVs that
handled well and weren't so prone to flip over, and as the Asian producers
entered the market, the US car companies were forced to produce increasingly
more mechanically sophisticated and therefore more expensive chassis. But
they were still following their vision and mission, which is to sell more
vehicles.
> Well, here we are. Oil is at $140/barrel and all US
> carmakers are on life support while all the oil companies
> are enjoying the biggest profits of any company ever.
> Staggering could better describe their profit margin.
Way OT, but what we are seeing now is probably a short-term blip. The supply
of oil is over the short term relatively inflexible. Over a period of say 5
years, the oil supply can be upgraded significantly if natural forces are
allowed to work themselves out. Demand for energy increased sharply as
formerly-technologically impoverished Asian countries shed many of the
inefficiencies of their outdated political systems. The beauty of
energy-inefficient products like SUVs is that it is relatively easy to
return to the use of far more energy-efficient transportation of a number
of different kinds including the far more fuel-efficient passenger cars that
are still in mass production, and have also been undergoing technological
development.
> I also have Densen's DeMagic CD. Again, many people say
> its effect is bogus.
In fact, products like this can't work. The thesis of the Harley Stereophile
article above is that these media treatments reduce jitter. In 1990, there
was a lot of hysteria over jitter, and frankly some of it was warranted
because the high end market had embarked on an adventure involving the
gratuitous use of external DACs, and like the early SUVs, many early
external DACs were pretty crude and not well-engineered. Ironically, the
people who stuck with CD players with internal DACs continued to enjoy the
good jitter performance of even the first-generation CD players.
A CD player *must* contend with relatively massive amounts of jitter to work
at all acceptably. Minor eccentricities of CDs being played are a fact of
life. Due to the miniscule dimensions of the pits on the CD surface, the CD
player must do some pretty impressive things in order to produce any music
at all. One of the things the CD player must do is constantly and rapidly
adjust the location of the laser pickup so that it tracks the spiral of tiny
pits which is also wobbling back and forth. The CD player must have an
internal buffer and precision clock to even out the inconsistencies in the
timing of data received from the laser pickup in order to work at all.
> I've tried it and definitely noticed a difference.
Two words: sighted evaluation.
The simple fact that so many people will so enthusiastically report events
that physically can't possibly happen is more criticism of sighted
evaluations than 1,000 ABX enthusiasts could possibly flood a newsgroup
with.
Sonnova
(in article <6erd1tF...@mid.individual.net>):
Speaker magnets are made of special alloys designed to be easily permeable
(or magnitized). It is very difficult to demagnetize them. Higher-end
speakers often use the types of super-magnets often demonstrated on TV how-to
shows as being able to lift many times their own weight and two of them stuck
together are almost impossible to separate. It would take some electromagnet
to demagnetize those!
But none of this has anything to do with the OP's preposterous assertion that
"demagnetizing" a CD (which has NO ferrous materials in it) will, in any way,
affect the CD's sound. Ğ I've also heard this ridiculous assertion made for
vinyl phonograph records. There seems to be no end to the gullibility of the
rabid audiophile.
Sonnova
(in article <6er74lF...@mid.individual.net>):
Tain't necessarily so (apologies to G. Gershwin). You can easily permanently
magnetize a screwdriver by taking a Weller-type soldering gun and replacing
the tip with about 10 turns of heavy copper wire. Insert the screwdriver
shaft into the loop made by the 10 turns and squeeze the trigger on the
Weller. Now move the 'driver back and forth with the field on and then
let-off on the trigger and remove the screwdriver. You will find it now
nicely magnetized. To de-magnetize same, turn gun on, insert screwdriver
shaft, and slowly remove the screwdriver with the gun turned ON. Pull the
screwdriver as far away from the coil as you can get it (both arm's length)
and then turn the screwdriver (or the soldering gun) 90 degrees and with the
two as far apart as practicable, turn off the soldering gun. You should now
have a demagnetized screwdriver. This second method is also good for
demagnetizing tape heads. Make the loops in the coil large enough to fit over
the head in question, turn on the gun, place the coil over the tape head, and
slowly withdraw. When the gun is at least six ft, from the head, turn it 90
degrees and release the soldering gun's trigger. This will erase the tape
head's residual magnetization. Make a big coil, place it against a CRT screen
on a TV and do the same procedure and you can demagnetize a color television
screen and restore its purity.
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
>
> Speaker magnets are made of special alloys designed to
> be easily permeable (or magnitized). It is very difficult to
> demagnetize them.
Uh, no.
You have a lot of pseudo-magnet terms which are used
contradictory to one another and inappropriately, the
result is a desciption of how speaker magnets do NOT
work.
First, speaker pangent consists of basically TWO kinds
of materials: the first is so called "soft" parts which
consist primarily of low-carbon steels. They have
the magnetic properties of high permeability, high
saturation magnetization moderate coercivity and low
remanance. They are very good at directing and
concentrating magnetic force lines, but themselves
caonctribute almost nothing to the stored magnetic field.
The second rtype of material is called "hard". They are
characterized by high-coercivity, high-remanance, moderate
permeability and moderate saturation magnetization. They,
because of their high remanance and coercivity, are very
good at storing a magnetic "charge" or magnetizationm'
but it's very hard to change the magnetization.
In most speaker these days, the "hard" magnetic material
is often a ceramic-based ferrite consisting os barium or
strontium ferrite. One can also find materials allows such
the aluminum-nickel-cobalt or AlNiCo, as well as so-called
rare-earth magnet material such as samarium cobalt or
neodymium born.
All of these material are characterized by high remamance:
they can store a large degree of magentization and high
coercivity: the magnetization is devilishly hard to change
and requires the impression of a magnetizing field well
in excess of the desired end point magnetization.
It is just as difficult to DEmagnetize them as it is to
magnetize them, though under certain environmental
conditions, some hard meterials in sub-optimum
designs can lose energy through mechanical or
thermal shock.
> Higher-end speakers often use the types of super-
> magnets often demonstrated on TV how-to
> shows as being able to lift many times their own
> weight
Actually, a cheap old ferrite magnet in a reasonably well
designed soft iron yoke could easily lift 100 times its own
weight.
> two of them stuck together are almost
> impossible to separate. It would take some
> electromagnet to demagnetize those!
Actually, no it's not. Simply raise its temperature
to the Curie point and poof! no more magnetization.
You can do that in a kitchen oven.
Yes, the assertions about how the CD can fix the speaker
is pretty out there, but let's not use complete technobabble
to "prove" it the case.
Arny Krueger
news:g6b0t...@news3.newsguy.com
>> Not really. This implies that speaker magnets can be
>> restored by generating "magic" AC fields via the voice
>> coil, a very remarkable discovery if true. Normally, AC
>> fields are used to demagnetize materials that have
>> become magnetized such as tape recorder heads.
> Tain't necessarily so (apologies to G. Gershwin). You can
> easily permanently magnetize a screwdriver by taking a
> Weller-type soldering gun and replacing the tip with
> about 10 turns of heavy copper wire. Insert the
> screwdriver shaft into the loop made by the 10 turns and
> squeeze the trigger on the Weller. Now move the 'driver
> back and forth with the field on and then let-off on the
> trigger and remove the screwdriver. You will find it now
> nicely magnetized.
You're taking advantage of a cheat. When you pulse the soldering gun, you
are creating a transient that is no doubt causing the magnetization effect.
You are BTW taking advantage of a nonlinear effect related to the operation
of the trigger switch.
That is vastly different than playing sounds off of a CD though a stereo.
> To de-magnetize same, turn gun on,
> insert screwdriver shaft, and slowly remove the
> screwdriver with the gun turned ON. Pull the screwdriver
> as far away from the coil as you can get it (both arm's
> length) and then turn the screwdriver (or the soldering
> gun) 90 degrees and with the two as far apart as
> practicable, turn off the soldering gun. You should now
> have a demagnetized screwdriver.
That would be more similar to anything you might achieve by playing a CD
through a stereo, except that the Weller iron operates with far higher
currents than a speaker voice coil.
Codifus
magnetically shielded speakers should be used, speakers that are NOT
magnetically shielded. Any old pair of speakers manufactured before,
say, the 1990s should fit the bill.
Also, it doesn't have to only be that type of speaker. Any pair of
speakers whose imaging (that mono test mentioned before will verify) has
gone down the tubes should benefit from The Densen CD.
I find it quite curious that most everyone who has replied has dismissed
my experiment by rattling off theories that would make a great thesis,
but not one person actually willing to try and prove me wrong on this
very very easy experiment.
Interesting.
CD
Codifus
>> bogus. I've tried it and definitely noticed a difference. The effect was
>> most apparent only the 1st time I used it, though. After that, I've used
>> it every couple of months and haven't noticed a change. Perhaps I
>> haven't given my electronics enough time to get magnetically out of
>> alignment. It's preventive maintenance, then.
>
> It's more likely sighted bias.
>
How does sighted bias explain that I noticed the effect the 1st time but
not any other time? All those times I played the Densen CD my sight was
good and the Densen CD looked the same:)
That's a rather quick and hasty dismissal, don't ya think?
CD
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
> By the way, I specified initially in the experiment that NON
> magnetically shielded speakers should be used, speakers
> that are NOT magnetically shielded. Any old pair of speakers
> manufactured before, say, the 1990s should fit the bill.
Do you know, in fact, what the difference is, how and WHY?
> Also, it doesn't have to only be that type of speaker.
Hold it a second, you're contradicting yourself.
First you said:
"NON magnetically shielded speakers should
be used"
Then you say:
"it doesn't have to only be that type of speaker."
Which is it?
> Any pair of speakers whose imaging (that mono
> test mentioned before will verify) has gone down
> the tubes should benefit from The Densen CD.
Whuy?
> I find it quite curious that most everyone who has
> replied has dismissed my experiment by rattling
> off theories
Sir, having, in fact, been professionally involved in
the design and measurement of loudspeakers for
over 30 years, let me assure you that I don't "rattle
off theories."
And, precisely what do you think a "theory" is? Are
you suggesting that Newton's theory of gravity is
just some old piece of guesswork he rattled off
while staying in the countryside. Is quantum theory
just one of a bunch of guesses?
> that would make a great thesis,
No, it actually makes for great engineering and
superb predictability and verification of actual
physical manifestations and phenomenon.
> but not one person actually willing to try and prove
> me wrong on this very very easy experiment.
Because, perhaps, some of us HAVE done just this type
of experiment and found the results VERY different.
Because, perhaps, your own data is self contradictory.
Because, perhaps, both you and the manufacturer are
make quite extraordinary claims, and the burden lies
on those making such extraordinary claims to prove
the phenomenon exists as claimed, not on the rest
of the world to prove that it doesn't.
Becasue,. perhaps, some of us (like, well, ME for
example), have a very large base of both knowledge
and experience in the very specific domain you're
talking about to know what they're talking about.
Because, perhaps, we've seen this type of claim
time and time again and when each of them has been
subject to any sort of actual verification, they have,
ALL of them, come up wanting.
> Interesting.
Actually, not.
Sonnova
(in article <g6b9e...@news1.newsguy.com>):
Sorry for misspeaking. My point was only that the permanent magnets used in
decent speakers aren't easily demagnetized, nor are they easily affected by
stray magnetic fields from such things as vacuum cleaner motors or other home
appliances. The OP's premise about affecting imaging with stray fields from
such motors (or TVs) is nonsense. It's simply NOT gonna happen.
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
> If a speaker's permanent magnets (which are
> obviously not totally permanent but can be harmed
> by abuse) lose some of their strength, the usual fix
> is to remove the voice coil and recharge the magnet
> assembly with a special machine that will be described
> a little bit more below. That's what works!
> BTW, speaker magnet assemblies are *not* magnetized
> by putting current through the voice coil. The magnetic
> assembly is "charged" by a special machine that uses
> large, relatively long electrical pulses. The magnetism is
> applied by a special jig that engages the pole pieces.
> The voice coil is installed once the magnetic assembly
> is charged.
Actually, this is not the case. For a varuety of reasons,
the magnetization is almost always the very LAST step
in the manufacturing of a driver, performed AFTER the
driver components, including the voice coil and dust caps
have been assembled.
Magnetizers are typically huge affairs that are capable
of immersing the entire assmebled driver in the magnetizing
field, and, over a very short period of time, immerse the
entire magnet assembly in a sufficiently strong field to
overcome the magnets coercive force. There's no need
to "engage the pole piece" at all. Doing it that way actually
substantially reduces the field density that can be imparted
on the magnetic field itself. The role of the pole pieces is
to concentrate the magnetic field of the lower permeability
hard magnet material, which has a much larger cross-
sectional area. The pole piece run at or near saturation
when the magnet itself is fully charge, but to charge the
magnet requires a much stronger field than you can impart
through the pole pieces.
For example, the saturation of the gap might be 12000
gauss, but the magnet itself might be running at a mere
1000 gauss when full charge, and the fact that the total
area of the magnet is 12=15 times that of the gap allows
the softw iron near the gap to concentrate that field. But
you can't stiff any more than 12000 gauss through the gap,
resulting in only 1000 gauss through the magnetic, far
too little to magnetize it.
Instead, you immerse the ENTIRE structure in, say, a
10000 gauss field momentarilly. Yeah, the gap saturates,
but you still have the 10000 gauss field permeating
the hard magnet parts and they are appropriately magnetized.
Taking that one step further, it becomes clearer why
it's not plausible to demagnitize a speaker through the voice
coil. Assuming the voice coil will thermally withstand the
current necessary,while you might be able to generate any
arbitrarily high field in the gap, the pole piece (especially
the outer diameter of the gap) STILL only will reach its
saturation magnetization (12000 Gauss or so for soft iron).
That amount of flux density in that small a gap translates
to a much smaller flux density when distributed over the
much larger cross sectional area of the magnet, and
you're nowhere near the kinds of flux density needed
to change the magnetization.
Take a practical example: an 8" woofer with a 1.5"
voice coil in a magnet assembly whose front plate
is a typical 0.318" thick, using a ceramic magnet
ring with an ID of 2" and an OD of 5". The cross-
sectional area of the front plate at the gap (the
narrowest point of the circuit and thus the limiting
point) has an area of about 9.5 cm^2. The magnet
itself has a cross sectional area of some 110 cm^2.
Assuming NO losses, with the gap at saturation at
12000 gauss, the magnet itself is seeing a flux
density of 12000 * 9.5/110 or about 1036 gauss,
nowhere near enough to reverse its magnetization.
All this goes directly to the showing the technical
assertions implicit in the other posters claims of the
CD are unsupportable on any physical grounds.
Arny Krueger
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>> Codifus <cod...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>> I also have Densen's DeMagic CD. Again, many people say
>>> its effect is bogus. I've tried it and definitely
>>> noticed a difference. The effect was most apparent only
>>> the 1st time I used it, though. After that, I've used
>>> it every couple of months and haven't noticed a change.
>>> Perhaps I haven't given my electronics enough time to
>>> get magnetically out of alignment. It's preventive
>>> maintenance, then.
>> It's more likely sighted bias.
Or more generally, criteria biasing.
http://www.lee.edu/library/uc_tutorial/mod7c.asp
> How does sighted bias explain that I noticed the effect
> the 1st time but not any other time?
We didn't mention cumulative or initial effects, we said sighted effects.
Your answer relates to cumulative or initial effects.
> All those times I
> played the Densen CD my sight was good and the Densen CD
> looked the same:)
But you were fully aware of the details of what you were listening to.
> That's a rather quick and hasty dismissal, don't ya think?
If a person has any illusions about their own lack of bias, some practical
experience with bias-controlled listening tests will fix most people up
quite quickly. As the article I cited above says:
"It is important to keep in mind that there is bias everywhere."
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
> > Codifus <codi...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> Perhaps I
> >> haven't given my electronics enough time to get magnetically out of
> >> alignment. It's preventive maintenance, then.
>
> > It's more likely sighted bias.
>
> How does sighted bias explain that I noticed the effect
> the 1st time but not any other time? All those times I
> played the Densen CD my sight was
> good and the Densen CD looked the same:)
>
> That's a rather quick and hasty dismissal, don't ya think?
No, it's not.
You made a series of rather extraordinary claims. Claims
which have some serious contraidctions to the known
macro and microscopic properties of conductors and
magnetic materials determined under conditions of
FAR greater sensitivity than you'll EVER encounter in
audio.
It's only a "rather quick and hasty dismissal" if you're
under the assumption that all technical opinions are
created equal. SOrry to vreak your illusion, but they are
not.
The notion that some schmoe who has a website has
come up with something that is contrary to what solid
state physicists have understood in great detail for
many many decades seriously stretches credibility
beyond Netownian limits.
To date, can you guess how many of these rather
extraordinary clims of discovery in the high-end audio
world have, in fact, lead to revisions of our knowledge
of conduction physics, magnetica, audio and such?
Well, the answer is, exactly ZERO.
If the writing on that web site is indicative of that person's
knowledge of physics, he is beyond clueless. The only
other choice is that he's a fraud.
The claims made by these sorts of people are of sufficiently
earth-shattering impact in their implications that, among
other things, they are of Nobel-prize stature. And how many
audio manufacturers do YOU know of having had lunch
recently with the King of Sweden.
NO, it's NOT up to us to do anything BUT dismiss
extraordinary claims. It';s up to those MAKING the claim
to substantiate them with something other than "it
worked for me." If it worked for you, fine, be happy with
and let it go at that. But as soon as you put the claim
out in the public space, the burden is YOURS to support
it.
You want proof that it works? Try the following experiment:
Find two pairs of the same speakers that both suffer, to
equal degrees, the problem you claim. Allow someone
to take ONE pair: you don't know which, and apply or NOT
apply the Densen CD treatment to it, completely out of
your site.
Afterwards, your job is very simple: all you nkow is that
one of the two pairs MAY have had the treatment applied.
BY LISTENING ALONE, tell us which one it is.
Do that reliably in a number of cases, and then, maybe,
it gets interesting. Otherwise, yawn.
But if it works for you, why do you even care what other
people think, and thus why even bother engaging in the
discussion, unles you DO want to face a skeptical
audience?
Sonnova
(in article <6etumiF...@mid.individual.net>):
> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
> news:g6b0t...@news3.newsguy.com
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:25:09 -0700, jwvm wrote
>> (in article <6er74lF...@mid.individual.net>):
>
>>> Not really. This implies that speaker magnets can be
>>> restored by generating "magic" AC fields via the voice
>>> coil, a very remarkable discovery if true. Normally, AC
>>> fields are used to demagnetize materials that have
>>> become magnetized such as tape recorder heads.
>
>> Tain't necessarily so (apologies to G. Gershwin). You can
>> easily permanently magnetize a screwdriver by taking a
>> Weller-type soldering gun and replacing the tip with
>> about 10 turns of heavy copper wire. Insert the
>> screwdriver shaft into the loop made by the 10 turns and
>> squeeze the trigger on the Weller. Now move the 'driver
>> back and forth with the field on and then let-off on the
>> trigger and remove the screwdriver. You will find it now
>> nicely magnetized.
>
> You're taking advantage of a cheat. When you pulse the soldering gun, you
> are creating a transient that is no doubt causing the magnetization effect.
> You are BTW taking advantage of a nonlinear effect related to the operation
> of the trigger switch.
>
> That is vastly different than playing sounds off of a CD though a stereo.
Actually, they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. There is
nothing magnetic in a stamped, mass produced CD that would have the slightest
affect on it. I was merely showing that one can magnetize and demagnetize
ferric objects using an AC signal , CDs aren't ferrous (except maybe
recordable ones which, if I understand correctly, do use a magnetic field to
effect the burning).
>> To de-magnetize same, turn gun on,
>> insert screwdriver shaft, and slowly remove the
>> screwdriver with the gun turned ON. Pull the screwdriver
>> as far away from the coil as you can get it (both arm's
>> length) and then turn the screwdriver (or the soldering
>> gun) 90 degrees and with the two as far apart as
>> practicable, turn off the soldering gun. You should now
>> have a demagnetized screwdriver.
>
> That would be more similar to anything you might achieve by playing a CD
> through a stereo, except that the Weller iron operates with far higher
> currents than a speaker voice coil.
They have nothing in common.
Sonnova
(in article <6etumuF...@mid.individual.net>):
It's not necessary. You can't supply a strong enough magnetic field using any
home appliance to in any way affect the magnetic field in a speaker -
especially so if the speaker in question is in its enclosure. Back in
reel-to-reel tape days, I kept a pro-quality 1/2" tape (bought it an
electronics flea market) degausser on top of one of my monitor speakers and
used to degauss 10.5" reels of audio tape with it regularly for years. Even
that strong of a magnetic field didn't change the performance of that speaker
one iota. Taking people to task for not trying your challenge is like a
flat-earther complaining that people don't take his assertions seriously and
won't try his experiments which show conclusively that the world is flat. You
see, it isn't.
Sonnova
(in article <6etun9F...@mid.individual.net>):
Please explain the theory on how a commercially stamped CD (which has no
magnetic properties) can be affected by demagnetizing? Most likely, you hear
a difference because you WANT TO, having spent the money on the device.
subsequent listenings do not elicit the same response as the first because
you have already heard the difference that you wanted to hear the first time
and that your expectations are that once treated, the disc shouldn't change.
Therefore it doesn't.
Codifus
> On Jul 25, 8:19 am, Codifus <codi...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> By the way, I specified initially in the experiment that NON
>> magnetically shielded speakers should be used, speakers
>> that are NOT magnetically shielded. Any old pair of speakers
>> manufactured before, say, the 1990s should fit the bill.
>
> Do you know, in fact, what the difference is, how and WHY?
No, I do not. I am just saying that I did hear a difference. Also, like
I said earlier, I only noticed the difference once. Never really noticed
it after that. This was probably due to the fact that I used it on
speakers that were severely out of magnetic alignment. It is what made
me buy the CD in the first place.
Let me be clear: the effect of the Densen Demagic CD will be most
apparent on a pair of speakers with extremely poor imaging. So poor that
when these said speakers are placed right next to each other, connected
in phase, and playing a monophonic audio source, the listener will not
be able to resolve a solid image midway between the speakers. PLay that
Demagic CD as loud as you can without distorting, and all will be good
again.
Now, because I have felt the effect on a most extreme case leads me to
believe that it is always working, just that I do not notice its effect
as whatever it has restored was more subtle.
>
>> Also, it doesn't have to only be that type of speaker.
>
> Hold it a second, you're contradicting yourself.
No, I'm not.
>
> First you said:
>
> "NON magnetically shielded speakers should
> be used"
>
> Then you say:
>
> "it doesn't have to only be that type of speaker."
>
> Which is it?
Both. I was expanding on the types of speakers that can be used. First,
I mentioned the non magnetically shielded ones. Why? Because they are
the easiest to throw out of whack simply by placing them near a TV etc.
And, the effect of Demagic will be most obvious.
Then, I expanded on the types of speakers that can be used. Basically,
ANY pair of speakers can be used that fails that mono test I mentioned
earlier. The effect of Demagice may not be as obvious with these but it
still works.
>
>> Any pair of speakers whose imaging (that mono
>> test mentioned before will verify) has gone down
>> the tubes should benefit from The Densen CD.
>
> Whuy?
I'm no expert, but Densen themselves have an explanation. All I can say
is that I heard it, most definitely.
>
>> I find it quite curious that most everyone who has
>> replied has dismissed my experiment by rattling
>> off theories
>
> Sir, having, in fact, been professionally involved in
> the design and measurement of loudspeakers for
> over 30 years, let me assure you that I don't "rattle
> off theories."
>
> And, precisely what do you think a "theory" is? Are
> you suggesting that Newton's theory of gravity is
> just some old piece of guesswork he rattled off
> while staying in the countryside. Is quantum theory
> just one of a bunch of guesses?
>
>
>> that would make a great thesis,
>
> No, it actually makes for great engineering and
> superb predictability and verification of actual
> physical manifestations and phenomenon.
>
>> but not one person actually willing to try and prove
>> me wrong on this very very easy experiment.
>
> Because, perhaps, some of us HAVE done just this type
> of experiment and found the results VERY different.
OK. Care to share? Please understand that I do know that normally the
Densen demagic CD's effect is incredibly hard to notice. My test makes
it's effect clear as day. You REALLY ought to try it.
>
> Because, perhaps, your own data is self contradictory.
>
> Because, perhaps, both you and the manufacturer are
> make quite extraordinary claims, and the burden lies
> on those making such extraordinary claims to prove
> the phenomenon exists as claimed, not on the rest
> of the world to prove that it doesn't.
>
> Becasue,. perhaps, some of us (like, well, ME for
> example), have a very large base of both knowledge
> and experience in the very specific domain you're
> talking about to know what they're talking about.
You are no doubt a very smart individual. I have seen your posts and
learned a great deal from you. You have also shot me down in flames on
an occaision or 2. But I keep coming back because I am always willing to
learn.
This is where I stop stroking your ego:)
Do you in fact think you know everything? Also, could you be wrong in
some things you've studied? Just because you don't hear something or
know of no law of physics to support a claim, does not make it untrue.
It just means that it hasn't been verified.
The world was once flat. Now it's round.
The titanic was unsinkable.
Light travels in a straight line.
As man has developed more sensitive and capable measuring instruments,
things that were once un-true became true.
>
> Because, perhaps, we've seen this type of claim
> time and time again and when each of them has been
> subject to any sort of actual verification, they have,
> ALL of them, come up wanting.
>
>> Interesting.
>
> Actually, not.
>
Yeah, still interesting.
There's another thread discussing whether we need science in audio
reviews and and now I see very clearly that the answer is most
definitely yes. There's 2 groups. The scientists, such as yourself, Arny
Kruger, and Steve Sullivan, who seem to go by the mantra that if they
can't hear it, and it hasn't been proven, then it doesn't exist. Period.
The other group would be the reviewers such as tnt-audio, stereophile,
etc. These 2 groups have a yin/yang relationship and it keeps both sides
on their toes.
CD
Steven Sullivan
No, because it is always something that must be ruled out in these sorts of
anecdotes, if they are to even begin approaching the status of 'observation of
a real phenomonen'
Codifus
magnetic field and vice versa. One does not exist without the other.
This is the exact principle behind transformers, speakers, you name it.
Electromagnetism.
If you push an electric current through a speaker, it moves. If you move
the speaker cone with your hand, guess what? An electrical current will
be generated that you can measure at the speaker terminals.
I'm more than willing to prove it to anyone. This test is so easy its
ridiculous.
I will not use my system or CD. I can already see that if anything of
mine were used in the test, the conclusion would be that I rigged it
somehow.
Here's the deal:
Any skeptical taker who has the respect of Dick Pierce, Arny Kruger,
Sonnova, or Steve Sullivan. I chose you 4 because you have always been
so adamant about your beliefs based on facts. Nothing wrong with that at
all. It is a completely logical way to think. I'm just trying to open
some minds. Now, that taker should have a pair of non-magnetically
shielded speakers. I suggest these type of speakers because they are
easily set out of whack by moving them around near a strong magnetic
field like a CRT based TV.
Speakers that fail the mono test can also be used, but things get murky
and subjective. Who says that the speakers are not phase coherent, you
me? Who to believe?
The user should buy the Densen CD for $40. Again, I won't use mine
because it must be rigged somehow:)I will then come and visit and we can
go through the test together.
Possible outcomes of the test:
You don't hear a change, I do. I'll give your $40 and we'll be done.
You and I both hear the change. Proof positive. Actually, If I'm right,
I want Mr. Kruger, Mr. Pierce, Sonnova and Steve Sullivan, to each send
me $15. I take paypal:)
Yes, I'm getting a little more back than I put in, but you guys give me
grief:) It's just to cover expenses.
CD
Sonnova
(in article <6ev4qiF...@mid.individual.net>):
But a CD doesn't have an "electrical field" associated with it. It's just a
piece of plastic with some aluminum sputtered onto it.
>
>
> If you push an electric current through a speaker, it moves. If you move
> the speaker cone with your hand, guess what? An electrical current will
> be generated that you can measure at the speaker terminals.
>
> I'm more than willing to prove it to anyone. This test is so easy its
> ridiculous.
>
> I will not use my system or CD. I can already see that if anything of
> mine were used in the test, the conclusion would be that I rigged it
> somehow.
nobody is arguing what you say about speakers, above. It's fundamental
electrical theory. Where I am skeptical, is what you say about about being
able to affect the magnetism of a permanent magnet speaker by its proximity
to household magnetic fields. My own experience and what little I know about
permanent magnets says that this is wrong. Secondly, I do not believe that
degaussing a CD will have any more effect on it than degaussing a vinyl
record would or could affect it and for the same reason. There is no
magnetically permeable materials in either. You'd have a better chance
degaussing your brain, at least blood has iron in it!
>
> Here's the deal:
>
> Any skeptical taker who has the respect of Dick Pierce, Arny Kruger,
> Sonnova, or Steve Sullivan. I chose you 4 because you have always been
> so adamant about your beliefs based on facts. Nothing wrong with that at
> all. It is a completely logical way to think. I'm just trying to open
> some minds. Now, that taker should have a pair of non-magnetically
> shielded speakers. I suggest these type of speakers because they are
> easily set out of whack by moving them around near a strong magnetic
> field like a CRT based TV.
first of all, as I said before, their are no strong magnetic fields
associated with a CRT TV. Yes there is a magnetic coil called a yoke around
the neck of the CRT, but it's field is concentrated to the area inside the
neck and is used to bend the electron beam shooting down the neck at the
video raster rate. More than a few inches from that coil yields no
discernible field. I suspect that you are confused because magnetically
shielded speakers are often associated with video. This is not because a
magnetic field from the CRT might interfere with the speaker, but rather
because the speaker's magnetic field can affect the CRT. Often when one puts
large speakers with heavy magnets next to a TV, one gets a rainbow of colors
not associated with the picture near the edges of the screen closest to the
speakers. By shielding the speakers' magnetic field, the chances that it can
affect the CRT's convergence and purity is reduced.
> Speakers that fail the mono test can also be used, but things get murky
> and subjective. Who says that the speakers are not phase coherent, you
> me? Who to believe?
Speaker phase coherence (or time alignment), ala E.H. Long is something else.
Codifus
> You want proof that it works? Try the following experiment:
>
> Find two pairs of the same speakers that both suffer, to
> equal degrees, the problem you claim. Allow someone
> to take ONE pair: you don't know which, and apply or NOT
> apply the Densen CD treatment to it, completely out of
> your site.
>
> Afterwards, your job is very simple: all you nkow is that
> one of the two pairs MAY have had the treatment applied.
> BY LISTENING ALONE, tell us which one it is.
>
> Do that reliably in a number of cases, and then, maybe,
> it gets interesting. Otherwise, yawn.
>
> But if it works for you, why do you even care what other
> people think, and thus why even bother engaging in the
> discussion, unles you DO want to face a skeptical
> audience?
This is an even better setup. I am totally game.
Why do I care? I guess I like to share. I subscribe to
rec.audio,high-end to discuss hifi with others that tend to share the
same enthusiasm for audio.
Why do you post on rec.audio,high-end?
CD
Codifus
red and blue appears across the screen. The effect of the speaker on the
TV is much more noticeable than any effect that may be on the speaker.
But there is an effect.
Often when one puts
> large speakers with heavy magnets next to a TV, one gets a rainbow of colors
> not associated with the picture near the edges of the screen closest to the
> speakers. By shielding the speakers' magnetic field, the chances that it can
> affect the CRT's convergence and purity is reduced.
>
>> Speakers that fail the mono test can also be used, but things get murky
>> and subjective. Who says that the speakers are not phase coherent, you
>> me? Who to believe?
>
> Speaker phase coherence (or time alignment), ala E.H. Long is something else.
>
I think you're missing the point. The CD is not being degaussed. The CD
is playing a tone. That tone manifests itself as an electrical signal
that goes through your entire audio system. That electrical signal in
turn generates a magnetic field. The properties of that generated
magnetic field are such that it neutralizes any static magnetism that
may have developed in the system.
You know, just as Arny Kruger mentioned deguassing old real to reel
tapes with a degausser and slowly moving away, this demagic CD is doing
the exact same thing. Think of the the tone as analogous to the
degausser's magnetic field. Now, as you slowly move away from the tape
heads the Demagic tone slowly fades away.
That's all it is.
CD
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
> dpierce.cartchunk....@gmail.com wrote:
> > You want proof that it works? Try the following experiment:
>
> > Find two pairs of the same speakers that both suffer, to
> > equal degrees, the problem you claim. Allow someone
> > to take ONE pair: you don't know which, and apply or NOT
> > apply the Densen CD treatment to it, completely out of
> > your site.
>
> > Afterwards, your job is very simple: all you nkow is that
> > one of the two pairs MAY have had the treatment applied.
> > BY LISTENING ALONE, tell us which one it is.
>
> > Do that reliably in a number of cases, and then, maybe,
> > it gets interesting. Otherwise, yawn.
>>
Fine, and I would further expand the experimental
design as follows: you have two otherwise identical pair
of loudspeakers. One of them may or may not have
been exposed to a CRT-based TV. You don't know
ahead of time which is which. BY SOUND ALONE,
tell us which pair it is.
> > But if it works for you, why do you even care what other
> > people think, and thus why even bother engaging in the
> > discussion, unles you DO want to face a skeptical
> > audience?
> Why do I care? I guess I like to share. I subscribe to
> rec.audio,high-end to discuss hifi with others that
> tend to share the same enthusiasm for audio.
> Why do you post on rec.audio,high-end?
I was one of the half dozen or so original founding
members of the group back in 1989 when it was
started by Tom Krueger as a mail list. I was invited
to participate precisely because of my background
in loudspeakers, acoustics, electronics, hi fi and
physics.
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
> Yes, I completely understand.
In fact, I believe the evidence you've presented shows
that you don't, with all respect.
> When you move speakers past the TV, this
> red and blue appears across the screen.
> The effect of the speaker on the TV is much
> more noticeable than any effect that may be
> on the speaker. But there is an effect.
Again, you state this as if it was accepted fact.
It is not.
> The CD is playing a tone. That tone manifests
> itself as an electrical signal that goes through
> your entire audio system. That electrical signal in
> turn generates a magnetic field. The properties
> of that generated magnetic field are such that it
> neutralizes any static magnetism that may have
> developed in the system.
Sorry, this is so much technobabble.
Why and how is this signal in any way different
than EVERY OTHER SIGNAL that passes through
an audio system that integrates to 0?
Please explain how the VAST majority of materials
in an audio system "develop a static magnetism"
when they, in fact, do not posses a net polar magnetic
moment, materials such as copper, aluminum, plastic,
glass and such. I run a current by them of hundred,
thousands of amps, and they do NOT "develop a static
magnetism," how is it possible for current of millionths
of an amp to do it.
And how is it possible for those materials that COULD
"develop a static magnetism" (irons and steels) to
then have that reversed by currents of millionths of
an amp, far too small to overcome the coercivity in such
materials?
> You know, just as Arny Kruger mentioned deguassing
> old real to reel tapes with a degausser and slowly
> moving away, this demagic CD is doing the exact same
> thing.
No, it's not, and this is further evidence that you do
NOT understand it. It;s substantially different in at
least one important factor: the field generated by a
degausser if MILLIONS of time stronger than the field
generated by the currents inside your audio system.
It HAS to be to overcome the coercivity of the magnetic
material in the tape. If the impressed field DOES NOT
exceed a critical threshold by a wide margin, no change
in the magnetization of the material occurs. And a few
microamps of signal passing through an audio system,
even a few amps passing through a voice coil is FAR too
small to work.
> Think of the the tone as analogous to the
> degausser's magnetic field. Now, as you
> slowly move away from the tape
> heads the Demagic tone slowly fades away.
>
> That's all it is.
And you fell for such a simple, intuitive explanation
hook, line and sinker.
Too bad the explanation is simply wrong.
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
> OK. Basic law of physics: every electrical field has an associated
> magnetic field and vice versa. One does not exist without the other.
> This is the exact principle behind transformers, speakers, you name it.
> Electromagnetism.
And precisely how is that relevant to your claim?
YOU'RE the one invoking electromagnetism, YOU
must have some good reason for doing so.
> If you push an electric current through a speaker,
> it moves. If you move the speaker cone with your
> hand, guess what? An electrical current will
> be generated that you can measure at the speaker
> terminals.
So? How is that relevant to your claim?
> I'm more than willing to prove it to anyone. This test is so easy its
> ridiculous.
Than you should find it easy, using the protocol
I suggested, to prove it. Go and do so.
> Any skeptical taker who has the respect of Dick Pierce, Arny Kruger,
> Sonnova, or Steve Sullivan. I chose you 4 because you have always been
> so adamant about your beliefs based on facts.
Please do not lump me in with others. Your
understanding of science is demonstrably poor,
and thus your characterizations and conclusions drawn
from that poor model are unreliable.
> I'm just trying to open some minds.
Problem is, open your mind enough and
anything can fall in. And out.
> Now, that taker should have a pair of non-
> magnetically shielded speakers. I suggest
> these type of speakers because they are
> easily set out of whack by moving them
> around near a strong magnetic field like
> a CRT based TV.
You state this as if it was accepted, axiomatic
fact.
Precisely on what basis do you make this
extraordinary claim? CHanges in the magnetic
properties of loudspeakers are trivially easy to
measure, yet in all the laboratories and referreed
scientific journals that deal with the magnetic
properties of materials, no where in the the entire
professional world of audio engineering is there
the SLIGHTEST HINT that unshielded speakers
are "easilt set out of whack near a stron magnetic
field like a CRT based TV."
Not one.
Why is that?
How "strong" do you think the magnetic field near a
TV is? Do you know? I do, because it is my job to
measure such fields.
And2 feet away from a CRT based TV, the external
field of that TV is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE
BACKGROUND DUE TO THE EARTH'S MAGNETIC
FIELD.
That's approximately 0.5 gauss at mid lattitudes.
So, if the field in the vicinity of a CRT-based TV is
onthe order of the same strength of the earth's
magnetic field, than, if CRT's affect speakers, the
earth's magnetic field sghould affect them thus
there should be NO difference between speakers
due to their proximity to CRT TV's
Yet you claim there are such differences.
Typical unshielded speakers can withstand
external static and alternating fields of HUNDREDS
of times higher than this with NO change in the
magnetic properties, and such fields are HUNDREDS
of times higher than devices such as motors or TVs
radiate.
YOU have made a specific assertion here:
I suggest these type of speakers because
they are easily set out of whack by moving them
around near a strong magnetic field like a CRT
based TV.
Thus, given the tremendous amount of knowledge
and experience that proceeds us all about such things,
in and of itself, constitutes and extraorindary claim.
Regardless of what sonic effects you claim result from
this, this statement alone is an exytraordinary claim that
can either be shown by PHYSICAL evidence to be
true or false.
I have, in fact, gathered data on THOUSANDS of
speakers, including magnetic data. And, along with
others we have at hand data on MILLIONS of speakers
that refute this one claim.
You have presented NOT A SINGLE SHRED of data
so support the PREMISE of your claim, that:
they are easily set out of whack by moving them
around near a strong magnetic field like a CRT
based TV.
Not one iota.
Don't tell me anout physics, my friend. Don't
tell me how it makes sense. Don't start spewing
electromagnetic "theory" or, with all due respect, your
very poor understanding of it.
Show me ANY objective data that supports your premise
that.
they are easily set out of whack by moving them
around near a strong magnetic field like a CRT
based TV.
And, by the way, your "offer" in the form of a wager
is not just a little insulting.
You want my time to prove or refute your claim?
My rates are $150/hr, the same that I charge anyone
else for short-term consulting.
Sonnova
(in article <g6e3p...@news4.newsguy.com>):
I'd have to see some real research on that. If a 1/2-inch tape degausser
won't demagnetize a speaker over a period of years, I daresay nothing you
could put near it would either.
>
> Often when one puts
>> large speakers with heavy magnets next to a TV, one gets a rainbow of
>> colors
>> not associated with the picture near the edges of the screen closest to the
>> speakers. By shielding the speakers' magnetic field, the chances that it
>> can
>> affect the CRT's convergence and purity is reduced.
>
>>
>>> Speakers that fail the mono test can also be used, but things get murky
>>> and subjective. Who says that the speakers are not phase coherent, you
>>> me? Who to believe?
>>
>> Speaker phase coherence (or time alignment), ala E.H. Long is something
>> else.
>>
> I think you're missing the point. The CD is not being degaussed. The CD
> is playing a tone. That tone manifests itself as an electrical signal
> that goes through your entire audio system. That electrical signal in
> turn generates a magnetic field. The properties of that generated
> magnetic field are such that it neutralizes any static magnetism that
> may have developed in the system.
Ah, I thought you were talking about one of thease CD degaussers that are
being sold. Silly me. OTOH, there is little or nothing about a tone played
through a system that would have any affect on that system either. It is
possible to degauss a phono cartridge using a degausser because the close
proximity of the permeable parts of the moving assembly are constantly in a
strong (if small) magnetic field.
>
> You know, just as Arny Kruger mentioned deguassing old real to reel
> tapes with a degausser and slowly moving away, this demagic CD is doing
> the exact same thing. Think of the the tone as analogous to the
> degausser's magnetic field. Now, as you slowly move away from the tape
> heads the Demagic tone slowly fades away.
>
> That's all it is.
>
> CD
I'd like to see some double-blind or ABX tests on this.
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
> This is where I stop stroking your ego:)
Don't be insulting, please, you are NOT up to the task.
> Do you in fact think you know everything?
Never made the claim, did i?
> Also, could you be wrong in some things
> you've studied?
Indeed, as could you.
But I have studied the operation of lopudspeakers
FAR MORE than you have. I have, in fact, studied
this particualr aspect of loudpsekaers FAR more
than you have.
Unless you have some earthshaking revelation
to the contrary, that might suggest your chances
of being wrong on this topic are substantially
greater than mine, no?
> Just because you don't hear something
Never even climed one way or the other: YOU'RE
claiming the presence of physical effects that would
be trivailly easy to detect by objective means, effects
that have NEVER ONCE been detected in the
millions of measurements over many decades
and you provide not a single shred of evidence.
You make claims as if they were established
fact without a shred of evidence.
> or know of no law of physics to support a
> claim, does not make it untrue.
It's not up to me to support your extraordinary claim:
that's YOUR jobn, and one that you're not doing a
very good job of.
> It just means that it hasn't been verified.
And that's YOUR job, sir, not mine.
Hop to it.
> The world was once flat. Now it's round.
Boy, you picked the WRONG model.
The vast majority of the people in any know in
the world have known the world was not flat for
over 2000 years. Archimedes, in fact, calculated
the diameter of the earth to within a feqw percent
2 millenia ago. There was NO serious quesrtioning
of this information by anyone over that period of
time.
The ONLY ones who did NOT believe the world was
round where the uneducated and the religiously
superstitious, quite analogous to those who are not
well educated in electromagnetic theory who believe
in CD tweaks and the like, e.g., many high-end
audiophiles
Sorry, you raised the comparison, I only finished it.
> The titanic was unsinkable.
Not according to the designers. They were able to
describe ahead of time several sceanrios where
the ship's integrity could be seriously compromised,
including ones not unnlike that that occurred. The
only ones who truly "believed" the ship was unsinkable
were those who didin't understand ship design and
physics, not unlike audiphiles who do not understand
electromagnetic theory that make wild claims about
how CDs can restore speakers.
Sorry, you raised the comparison, I only finished it.
> Light travels in a straight line.
Indeed it does: Einstein showed this conclusively
in the general theory of relativity: all objects follow
constant geodesics and APPEAR to curve due
to the curvature of space time in the presence of
massive objects. The only people who BELIEVE
otherwise are those who do not understand relativity.
not unlike audiphiles who have a poor understanding
of eletctromagnetic theory and believe that "special"
signals can eliminate "static magnetism" inside audio
components.
> As man has developed more sensitive and capable
> measuring instruments, things that were once un-
> true became true.
And thos einstruments have existed, in the case of
what you're talking about, for well over half a century.
> Yeah, still interesting.
>
> There's another thread discussing whether we need science in audio
> reviews and and now I see very clearly that the answer is most
> definitely yes. There's 2 groups. The scientists, such as yourself, Arny
> Kruger, and Steve Sullivan, who seem to go by the mantra that if they
> can't hear it, and it hasn't been proven, then it doesn't exist. Period.
Learn to read, sir, because that is NOT was I've said.
> The other group would be the reviewers such as tnt-
> audio, stereophile, etc. These 2 groups have a yin/yang
> relationship and it keeps both sides on their toes.
No, they don't.
Please name a SINGLE one of these "magic" and
"marvelous" audiophile innovations that has made ANY
change WHATSOEVER in mainstream science, that
has lead to ANY change in ANY paradigm of physics,
that has not died a death of ridiculed obscurity it so
richly deserved.
This CD demagnetizer nonsense has been around AT
LEAST for a decade or more, and has gotten NO traction
ANYWHERE other than in a narrow niche in the high-end
market.
Why do you suppose that is?
Arny Krueger
> I'm just trying to open some minds.
I long ago learned that having an open mind is not facilitated by having
holes in the head. ;-)
> Now, that taker should have a pair of
> non-magnetically shielded speakers. I suggest these type
> of speakers because they are easily set out of whack by
> moving them around near a strong magnetic field like a
> CRT based TV.
You can't hurt the speaker with the TV, but you may hurt the TV with the
speaker.
Dick Pierce just showed that with his comments on my comment about
magnetizing speakers via their pole pieces. If you can't magnetize or
demagnetize a speaker via a special fixture applied to its pole pieces, you
sure as the dickens aren't going to hurt it by putting it near a TV!
Usually the TV has the resources to fix itself in the form of a built-in
degaussing coil, often automatically engaged during power up, or via a
service function on some menu some place.
Arny Krueger
> You know, just as Arny Kruger mentioned deguassing old
> real to reel tapes with a degausser and slowly moving
> away,
I didn't say that, Sonnova did.
> this demagic CD is doing the exact same thing.
It can't because it lacks the ability to create an equally intense magnetic
field.
Sonnova
(in article <g6fgn...@news1.newsguy.com>):
Actually, the whole "unsinkable Titanic" myth can be traced to one remark
made by White Star Line managing director, J. Bruce Ismay following another,
rather more circumspect comment by the ship's captain, Edward John Smith. As
some prominent passengers were going up the gang-plank at Southampton,
someone asked Captain Smith if the new ship was was stronger than the last
generation of big liners (such as the 1906 Lusitannia), to which the Captain
replied "madam, Harlan and Wolf has designed this ship to be damn near
unsinkable" (notice the modifying phrase "damn near") To which Ismay
unfortunately added: "Why madam, the Lord Himself couldn't sink this ship."
Obvioulsy, "the Lord" was out to prove him wrong. :->
At any rate, no one else was ignorant enough to make such a claim, including
her designer, Harlan & Wolf naval architect Thomas Andrews.
jwvm
> Actually, they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. There is
> nothing magnetic in a stamped, mass produced CD that would have the slightest
> affect on it. I was merely showing that one can magnetize and demagnetize
> ferric objects using an AC signal , CDs aren't ferrous (except maybe
> recordable ones which, if I understand correctly, do use a magnetic field to
> effect the burning).
>
Its hard to follow what your problem is with Arnie's remarks. Your
claim that it is possible to magnetize steel objects with an AC field
is true but irrelevant to the original claim regarding speakers given
their physical properties. The amount and polarity of the amount of
magnetism induced is quite random with an AC field. Indeed, it is
well-known that tape heads can be magnetized if one uses a
demagnetizer incorrectly.
Also, please note that CDRs and CDRWs do not employ magnetism when
recording. You are confusing them with magneto-optical media like
minidiscs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneto-optical_drive
> > That would be more similar to anything you might achieve by playing a CD
> > through a stereo, except that the Weller iron operates with far higher
> > currents than a speaker voice coil.
>
> They have nothing in common.
That is not true. The voice coil and the coil attached to a soldering
gun both generate an AC field. But as you seem to have indicated, the
AC field generated by a voice coil under normal operation will not
change the characteristics of a speaker in any significant manner.
Steven Sullivan
> Any skeptical taker who has the respect of Dick Pierce, Arny Kruger,
> Sonnova, or Steve Sullivan. I chose you 4 because you have always been
> so adamant about your beliefs based on facts. Nothing wrong with that at
> all. It is a completely logical way to think. I'm just trying to open
> some minds.
I'm flattered to be placed in such company, but I don't pretend to have a
fraction of the expertise in the physics of loudspeaker magnets that Mr.
Pierce has. I would suggest you pay close attention to the schooling he's
been giving you over the past few days in his replies.
My expertise is in the life sciences, and of necessity I'm well aware of
the need for and use of controls, when making truth-claims from experiment
and observation. The plain fact is that human mind is in some ways too
'open' to suggestion, and this is why we have need controls in the first
place. Carefully testing claims against reality is how science moves
forward. So far your experiments haven't begun to approach the standard
that would verify your claims, nor is here reason a priori, from previous
findings, to expect your claims to be true.
Sonnova
(in article <g6fma...@news2.newsguy.com>):
> On Jul 25, 5:58 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
>> Actually, they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. There is
>> nothing magnetic in a stamped, mass produced CD that would have the
>> slightest
>> affect on it. I was merely showing that one can magnetize and demagnetize
>> ferric objects using an AC signal , CDs aren't ferrous (except maybe
>> recordable ones which, if I understand correctly, do use a magnetic field to
>> effect the burning).
>>
>
> Its hard to follow what your problem is with Arnie's remarks.
Could be because I have no problems with Arnie's remarks.
Your
> claim that it is possible to magnetize steel objects with an AC field
> is true but irrelevant to the original claim regarding speakers given
> their physical properties. The amount and polarity of the amount of
> magnetism induced is quite random with an AC field. Indeed, it is
> well-known that tape heads can be magnetized if one uses a
> demagnetizer incorrectly.
Someone said that one couldn't magnetize objects with an AC field. I merely
said that such a claim wasn't necessarily so, and then provided an example.
> Also, please note that CDRs and CDRWs do not employ magnetism when
> recording. You are confusing them with magneto-optical media like
> minidiscs:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneto-optical_drive
Wasn't too sure and stated same.
>
>>> That would be more similar to anything you might achieve by playing a CD
>>> through a stereo, except that the Weller iron operates with far higher
>>> currents than a speaker voice coil.
>>
>> They have nothing in common.
>
> That is not true. The voice coil and the coil attached to a soldering
> gun both generate an AC field. But as you seem to have indicated, the
> AC field generated by a voice coil under normal operation will not
> change the characteristics of a speaker in any significant manner.
Since I'm not sure of the exact context of the quote, above, I cannot
comment.
Sonnova
(in article <g6fm9...@news2.newsguy.com>):
> "Codifus" <cod...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:g6e3p...@news4.newsguy.com
>
>> You know, just as Arny Kruger mentioned deguassing old
>> real to reel tapes with a degausser and slowly moving
>> away,
>
> I didn't say that, Sonnova did.
Yep.
>> this demagic CD is doing the exact same thing.
>
> It can't because it lacks the ability to create an equally intense magnetic
> field.
Not to mention that a stereo system is NOT a reel of magnetic tape.
Sonnova
(in article <g6fm8...@news2.newsguy.com>):
In the early color TV days, technicians used to carry large, hoola-hoop coils
of wire with them on their trucks. They would place the coils flat against
the screen and then, with them energized, pull them slowly away from the
screen. At some point, most would turn the coil perpendicular to the screen
and witch it off. At some point they built the coils into the TV and used a
shaped pulse with a slow release time (I surmise) to give the same effect as
backing the coil away from the screen. Haven't seen a screen degausser in
years, but I suspect that they are still around.
Sonnova
(in article <6f165tF...@mid.individual.net>):
Well, said and I agree. Especially with what you said about paying attention
to Mr. Pierce's comments over the last few days. Very enlightening.
codifus
> "Codifus" <codi...@optonline.net> wrote in message
You're right. Forgive me. The TV has a miniscule magnetic field
relative to a speaker. I got it backwards. Still, I stand by my
observation that I heard the Demagic do its thing once. Most
definitely.
I had a pair of speakers which had shoddy imaging. To clarify that
test I placed them within 6 inches of each other, and verified that
they were correctly connected in phase. I listened to an audio source
in mono. The imaging was shot. With such a small distance between them
the ghost image midway between the speakers should have been very
strong.
It wasn't. So I played the Demagic CD and all was good again.
CD
codifus
> On Jul 25, 10:56 pm, Codifus <codi...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > Yes, I completely understand.
>
> In fact, I believe the evidence you've presented shows
> that you don't, with all respect.
>
> > When you move speakers past the TV, this
> > red and blue appears across the screen.
> > The effect of the speaker on the TV is much
> > more noticeable than any effect that may be
> > on the speaker. But there is an effect.
>
> Again, you state this as if it was accepted fact.
> It is not.
OK. I believe it so strongly and I'm prepared to prove it with the
tests you outlined.
Now, let's say that I guess evertyhing correctly, would my observaton
then become fact?
>
> > The CD is playing a tone. That tone manifests
> > itself as an electrical signal that goes through
> > your entire audio system. That electrical signal in
> > turn generates a magnetic field. The properties
> > of that generated magnetic field are such that it
> > neutralizes any static magnetism that may have
> > developed in the system.
>
> Sorry, this is so much technobabble.
Like I said, I'm not expert in these fields. But I know you understand
what I'm trying to say.
>
> Why and how is this signal in any way different
> than EVERY OTHER SIGNAL that passes through
> an audio system that integrates to 0?
First of all, some signals may suffer from a DC bias. Secondly, do you
always play music from beginning to end? Or could you at times, just
shut if off in the middle of a passage, or change channel etc?
>
> Please explain how the VAST majority of materials
> in an audio system "develop a static magnetism"
> when they, in fact, do not posses a net polar magnetic
> moment, materials such as copper, aluminum, plastic,
> glass and such. I run a current by them of hundred,
> thousands of amps, and they do NOT "develop a static
> magnetism," how is it possible for current of millionths
> of an amp to do it.
>
Here's my very non-technical, non expert opinion on the matter: it is
understood that all electronic components do not behave ideally. Far
from it. A resistor has some capacitance, capacitors have some
inductance etc. So I extrapolate that notion with the idea that any
component that can support a magnetic field would probably have a
tendency to store some magnetism. A copper wire, for example. The
amount it may store would be miniscule, but it may hold some. Same
goes for the capacitor, IC, etc. Now, all these components that are in
a speakers' crossover plus the voice coil may store just enough
magnetism to cause that phase issue I mentione before.
I may be wrong on the technical explanation, but I hope its enough to
convey the idea I'm trying to get across.
> And how is it possible for those materials that COULD
> "develop a static magnetism" (irons and steels) to
> then have that reversed by currents of millionths of
> an amp, far too small to overcome the coercivity in such
> materials?
>
> > You know, just as Arny Kruger mentioned deguassing
> > old real to reel tapes with a degausser and slowly
> > moving away, this demagic CD is doing the exact same
> > thing.
>
> No, it's not, and this is further evidence that you do
> NOT understand it. It;s substantially different in at
> least one important factor: the field generated by a
> degausser if MILLIONS of time stronger than the field
> generated by the currents inside your audio system.
> It HAS to be to overcome the coercivity of the magnetic
> material in the tape. If the impressed field DOES NOT
> exceed a critical threshold by a wide margin, no change
> in the magnetization of the material occurs. And a few
> microamps of signal passing through an audio system,
> even a few amps passing through a voice coil is FAR too
> small to work.
Sorry, I said its the exact same thing. I should have been more clear
and said its the perfect analogy. When I post to a newsgroup, I just
post and rarely even double check for spelling etc. I'm not writing a
paper. It's mostly casual typing for me.
The magnitude of the filed is not what I'm comparing when looking at
the Demagic and tape degausser. It's the process. Both are generating
a magnetic field. In order for the deguassing process to work properly
one must move away very slowly. This is analogous to the Demagic CD
which fades away slowly. If you abruptly stop playing the CD in the
middle, it would be just like turning off the degausser suddenly
whilst in the middle of the degaussing process.
>
> > Think of the the tone as analogous to the
> > degausser's magnetic field. Now, as you
> > slowly move away from the tape
> > heads the Demagic tone slowly fades away.
>
> > That's all it is.
>
> And you fell for such a simple, intuitive explanation
> hook, line and sinker.
>
> Too bad the explanation is simply wrong.
CD
Peter Wieck
geometrical process to trisect any angle - that person will have
credibility for me when it comes to little green pens, demagentizing
non-magnetic substances, bi-wiring speakers (assuming the original
single set of wires meets all electrical requirements based on
distance, gauge and material) - and so forth.
Otherwise, I have no need for additional smoke, mirrors or magic hats
in this household, thank you so much.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Sonnova
(in article <g6i3d...@news2.newsguy.com>):
Since most components aren't DC coupled, that would hardly matter. I'll
guarantee that no source (vinyl, CD player, tuner, tape deck,, etc.) has any
DC component in their signals even if both amp and preamp are DC coupled
throughout.
> Secondly, do you
> always play music from beginning to end? Or could you at times, just
> shut if off in the middle of a passage, or change channel etc?
I don't see what relevance that has.
>
>>
>> Please explain how the VAST majority of materials
>> in an audio system "develop a static magnetism"
>> when they, in fact, do not posses a net polar magnetic
>> moment, materials such as copper, aluminum, plastic,
>> glass and such. I run a current by them of hundred,
>> thousands of amps, and they do NOT "develop a static
>> magnetism," how is it possible for current of millionths
>> of an amp to do it.
>>
>
> Here's my very non-technical, non expert opinion on the matter: it is
> understood that all electronic components do not behave ideally. Far
> from it. A resistor has some capacitance, capacitors have some
> inductance etc. So I extrapolate that notion with the idea that any
> component that can support a magnetic field would probably have a
> tendency to store some magnetism. A copper wire, for example. The
> amount it may store would be miniscule, but it may hold some. Same
> goes for the capacitor, IC, etc. Now, all these components that are in
> a speakers' crossover plus the voice coil may store just enough
> magnetism to cause that phase issue I mentione before.
>
> I may be wrong on the technical explanation, but I hope its enough to
> convey the idea I'm trying to get across.
Depends on the point that you're trying to get across. If your point is that
you have no idea what the "theory" behind this procedure is, and don't know
enough about electronics to understand that what you are proposing is simply
horse-puckey, then I'd say that you have conveyed your ideas very well.
But the size of the field generated makes ALL the difference. Large amounts
of radium eventually killed Madame Curie, but many people wore luminous dial
watches on their wrists or in the watch pockets of their trousers for decades
with no ill effects. The difference is, of course, the amount of exposure to
the radium. Watches had miniscule amounts and these did not generally pose
much of a health hazard. OTOH, the workers at watch factories whose job it
was to apply the radium to the watch dials, had much higher incidents of
cancers than did the general population and of course, exposure to large
amounts of radium killed the aforementioned Marie Curie. Another example
would be for me to tell you to grab hold of the ends of two bare wires, the
other ends of which are soldered to a flashlight battery. Since the battery
is only 1.5 volts, you won't even feel it. Now I ask you to perform the exact
same procedure with bare ends of two wires that are plugged into a mains
outlet on the wall. Same procedure, different result.
This is analogous to the Demagic CD
> which fades away slowly. If you abruptly stop playing the CD in the
> middle, it would be just like turning off the degausser suddenly
> whilst in the middle of the degaussing process.
Again you overlook the fact that the signal being generated by the CD is too
small to degauss anything - and that's assuming that there is anything there
to degauss in the first place.
jwvm
<Snip>
> Like I said, I'm not expert in these fields. But I know you understand
> what I'm trying to say.
Its clear what you are trying to say but it does not make sense
technically. The actual properties of magnetism are very different
from what you describe.
>
>
> First of all, some signals may suffer from a DC bias. Secondly, do you
> always play music from beginning to end? Or could you at times, just
> shut if off in the middle of a passage, or change channel etc?
>
Where would this bias come from? Normal stereo components do not have
response to DC so any DC component would be removed.
>
<snip>
> Here's my very non-technical, non expert opinion on the matter: it is
> understood that all electronic components do not behave ideally. Far
> from it. A resistor has some capacitance, capacitors have some
> inductance etc. So I extrapolate that notion with the idea that any
> component that can support a magnetic field would probably have a
> tendency to store some magnetism. A copper wire, for example. The
> amount it may store would be miniscule, but it may hold some. Same
> goes for the capacitor, IC, etc. Now, all these components that are in
> a speakers' crossover plus the voice coil may store just enough
> magnetism to cause that phase issue I mentione before.
>
> I may be wrong on the technical explanation, but I hope its enough to
> convey the idea I'm trying to get across.
>
There is nothing wrong with your communication skills here. Its your
description of how the physical world works that is the problem.
Magnetism does not affect the vast majority of electronic components
in any significant fashion.
>
<snip>
> The magnitude of the filed is not what I'm comparing when looking at
> the Demagic and tape degausser. It's the process. Both are generating
> a magnetic field. In order for the deguassing process to work properly
> one must move away very slowly. This is analogous to the Demagic CD
> which fades away slowly. If you abruptly stop playing the CD in the
> middle, it would be just like turning off the degausser suddenly
> whilst in the middle of the degaussing process.
>
the Demagic CD sounds like pure snake oil from your description as to
how it works. Its the perfect audiophile accessory. Given how it is
claimed to work, it would be difficult to perform a double-blind test
in a reasonable amount of time to prove that it really does nothing.
Blarp
Somewhere in my humble abode I have a non hi-end sound system. (cd
player, stereo amp, modest speakers)
I find that re-seating the RCA connectors once in a while increases
sound quality (oxidized contacts sound somewhat like crossover
distortion).
The amp in casu developed a flaw in the speaker protection relay -
causing the same distortion as described above.
Adding a shot of sound at elevated volume cures it for some time
(higher current trough relay contacts ("contact wetting current")).
I suspect the playing any test-tone at elevated levels cures -in some
equipment- contact issues that slowly built up over time. (including
switches, pots etc.)
Also goes a long way to explain why "the new cable" sounds so much
better. The old one would too after just re-seating.
(incidentally - I observed gold flash finish on interconnects to be
very thin. I guess expensive interconnects / equipment should make a
difference specifically in this aspect..)
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
>
> > On Jul 25, 10:56 pm, Codifus <codi...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > Yes, I completely understand.
>
> > In fact, I believe the evidence you've presented shows
> > that you don't, with all respect.
>
> > > When you move speakers past the TV, this
> > > red and blue appears across the screen.
> > > The effect of the speaker on the TV is much
> > > more noticeable than any effect that may be
> > > on the speaker. But there is an effect.
>
> > Again, you state this as if it was accepted fact.
> > It is not.
>
> OK. I believe it so strongly and I'm prepared to
> prove it with the tests you outlined.
Look, you have a problem comprehending what
I'm saying. Let me see if I can put it more clearly.
You, in fact, have TWO issues:
1. You've claimed you heard some audible effect
on using some contrivance,
2. You've made specific technical assertions about
the operation and behavior of the magnetic system
of loudspeakers, e.g.:
"I suggest these type of speakers because
they are easily set out of whack by moving them
around near a strong magnetic field like a CRT
based TV."
These two issue CAN be separated from one another,
and I have done that.
The first issue: what you may or may not have heard,
I am NOT addressing. The second issue: your
assertions about loudspeakers and electromagnetic
phenomenon, I AM addressing.
Please do not bundle the two together: they are
spearate issues.
> Now, let's say that I guess evertyhing correctly,
> would my observaton then become fact?
No, you just admitted to guessing. Why is a "guess"
equivalent to a "fact?"
> > > The CD is playing a tone. That tone manifests
> > > itself as an electrical signal that goes through
> > > your entire audio system. That electrical signal in
> > > turn generates a magnetic field. The properties
> > > of that generated magnetic field are such that it
> > > neutralizes any static magnetism that may have
> > > developed in the system.
>
> > Sorry, this is so much technobabble.
>
> Like I said, I'm not expert in these fields.
Then why try to act like one?
> But I know you understand what I'm trying to say.
No, I don't know that. What I DO know is, with all
due respect, you do NOT know what you are talking
about when you make technical assertions about the
behavior of the electromagnetic properties of conductors,
magnets and loudspeakers.
> > Why and how is this signal in any way different
> > than EVERY OTHER SIGNAL that passes through
> > an audio system that integrates to 0?
>
> First of all, some signals may suffer from a DC bias.
Give me a SINGLE example of ANY recorded signal
that exhibits such a property.
> Secondly, do you always play music from beginning
> to end? Or could you at times, just shut if off in the
> middle of a passage, or change channel etc?
Not only incorrect, but irrelevant as well. You are making
the incorrect assumption that the entire system is
DC coupled from beginning to end. If it's not, all signals
integrate to 0.
> > Please explain how the VAST majority of materials
> > in an audio system "develop a static magnetism"
> > when they, in fact, do not posses a net polar magnetic
> > moment, materials such as copper, aluminum, plastic,
> > glass and such. I run a current by them of hundred,
> > thousands of amps, and they do NOT "develop a static
> > magnetism," how is it possible for current of millionths
> > of an amp to do it.
>
> Here's my very non-technical, non expert opinion
> on the matter:
And, as such, it is ONLY an opinion. If you are
under the impression that all technical opinions
are created equal, then you're mistaken.
> it is understood that all electronic components
> do not behave ideally.
No, amongst us practitioners, it is NOT so understood,
it is OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE.
That's one BIG difference between belief and science.
> Far from it. A resistor has some capacitance, capacitors
> have some inductance etc.
So? How is this relevant?
> So I extrapolate that notion with the idea that any
> component that can support a magnetic field
> would probably have a tendency to store some
> magnetism.
And, you're wrong. Extrapolation ONLY works
if the paradigm is linear and conitunous. You're
making the assumption that it is, when it, in fact,
is not.
> A copper wire, for example. The amount it may
> store would be miniscule, but it may hold some.
Then why has it not been found outside of the nutso
fringe of the audio "high-end?" There have been
measurement made on conductors and materials
at levels that are MANY orders of magntidue lower
than the lowest EVER encountered and the effect
you claim HAS NOT BEEN FOUND.
Your extrapolation is WRONG. Any conclusions made
on a wrong premise is likely to be wrong.
> Same goes for the capacitor, IC, etc. Now, all these
> components that are in a speakers' crossover plus
> the voice coil may store just enough magnetism to
> cause that phase issue I mentione before.
"stored magnetisom" in voice coils is trivially easy to
measure. I have the means right here at my disposal
to measure magnetic fields far lower than the fields
encountered inside speakers. Never has the effect
you claim been found.
I have the means of measuring phase to extraordinarily
small degrees, yet the "phase issue" you claim just is
not there.
And both of these measurements are at resolutions
FAR lower than are audible.
> I may be wrong on the technical explanation,
Yes, unfortunately, you are.
> but I hope its enough to convey the idea I'm
> trying to get across.
They do: and they do so with sufficient clarity to
conclude with little doubt your idea is wrong.
Sorry, but that's the way it is.
> The magnitude of the filed is not what I'm
> comparing when looking at the Demagic
> and tape degausser. It's the process.
You just don't get it. The magitude issue IS CRUCIAL
to the process. If the field does not exceed some critical
threshold, no magnetization takes effect. Below that, NO
effect occurs. And the level YOU'RE talking about are
MILLIONS of times too small.
> Both are generating a magnetic field.
But fields that differ by ENORMOUS amounts, and that's
what you're refusing to get.
> In order for the deguassing process to work properly
> one must move away very slowly.
False. Wrong. Incorrect. How many more ways does on
have to say it before you begin to get it.
In order for the degaussing process to work. First, a field
WELL IN EXCESS and OPPOSITE polarity to the stored field
must be impressed. This gets the stored field to flip
polarity. And with each reverals, the field is diminished,
so that the polarity of the stored field keeps flipping, but the
magntidue diminshes.
But, once the impressed field drops below a certain point,
the process stops, and the material is LEFT with a small
residual field.
BUT THE MAGNITUDE OF THE FIELD STARTS OUT
MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER THAN
WHAT YOU'RE CLAIMING.
The field you're claiming CANNOT cause the degaussing,
because even at their stringest THEY ARE THOUSANDS
AND MILLIONS OF TIMES TOO SMALL.
Why do you refuse to understand that?
> This is analogous to the Demagic CD
> which fades away slowly. If you abruptly stop playing the CD in the
> middle, it would be just like turning off the degausser suddenly
> whilst in the middle of the degaussing process.
No, it is not, becaus ethe signals in your audio
system are simply FAR to small to have causes
the problem you claim in the first place, and far
too small to correct the problem which isn't there
to begin with.
And why don't the reverberation tails in recorded
music do EXACTLY the same thing? (Because,
just like the Demagic CD, they can't).
Look, you can firmly sit there an believe all you
want that you heard the effect. I'm not going to
argue with you nor challenge that assertion.
However, when you make specific TECHNICAL
assertions that are objectively verifiable about the
behavior of soudspeakers, and then tell us you're
no expert, and then continue to spout completely
unfounded technical assertion about how you
extrapolated a poor understanding in one domain
to completely incorrect assumptions in another,
then you're out of luck: those assertion will be
challenged.
This CD cannot possibly work via the mechanisms
you're claiming. Period.
By the way, did you EVER wonder why it's called
the De"MAGIC" CD?
C. Leeds
> The ONLY ones who did NOT believe the world was
> round where the uneducated and the religiously
> superstitious, quite analogous to those who are not
> well educated in electromagnetic theory who believe
> in CD tweaks and the like, e.g., many high-end
> audiophiles...
The flat earth analogy applies to extremists on both sides of the tired
debate, where faith and religion guide belief.
Arny Krueger
news:g6i3d...@news2.newsguy.com
> OK. I believe it so strongly and I'm prepared to prove it
> with the tests you outlined.
You're going to try some bias-controlled listening test?
> Now, let's say that I guess evertyhing correctly, would
> my observaton then become fact?
The phrase "Scientific fact" is an oxymoron. All findings of science are
provisional, and only relelvant until we find out something bettter.
>>> The CD is playing a tone. That tone manifests
>>> itself as an electrical signal that goes through
>>> your entire audio system. That electrical signal in
>>> turn generates a magnetic field. The properties
>>> of that generated magnetic field are such that it
>>> neutralizes any static magnetism that may have
>>> developed in the system.
Whether you demagnetize it or not, an audio system is full of different
examples of what you call static magnetism.
For example, a CD player has at least two motors. The motors are usually
small DC motors with permanent magnet fields. These static magnetic fields
are a the most just a few inches from analog audio signal paths.
If static magnetism is such a sound quality problem, why hasn't every CD
player manufacturer ditched DC motors?
> this is so much technobabble.
Agreed.
> Like I said, I'm not expert in these fields. But I know
> you understand what I'm trying to say.
It's like listening to someone trying to explain how their perpetual motion
machine works. They ain't gonna pass the next thermodynamics test, thinking
like that!
>> Why and how is this signal in any way different
>> than EVERY OTHER SIGNAL that passes through
>> an audio system that integrates to 0?
> First of all, some signals may suffer from a DC bias.
First off, the audio production chain is full of 100.00% effective
roadblocks to DC bias.
For example, all performance spaces and studios have doors, windows, ducts
and very many accidental air leaks.
All microphones, even those with fully-enclosed chambers behind the
diaphragm, have carefully-designed air leaks.
All mic preamps, especially those that support phantom power, have
low-leakage input coupling capacitors.
All audio production gear has input, output, and interstage coupling
capacitors.
Most DAW software has commands for removing DC bias. It also has commands
that implement high pass filters that remove DC bias as part of their
inherent operation.
Recording hardware has input, output, and interstage coupling capacitors.
Ditto for the playback side.
> Secondly, do you always play music from beginning to end?
> Or could you at times, just shut if off in the middle of
> a passage, or change channel etc?
If a recording has a DC bias, and you shut it off in the middle, there will
be a transient. That's one reason why audio production equipment, whether
hardware or software, is bound and determined to remove DC bias from the
recording.
>> Please explain how the VAST majority of materials
>> in an audio system "develop a static magnetism"
>> when they, in fact, do not posses a net polar magnetic
>> moment, materials such as copper, aluminum, plastic,
>> glass and such. I run a current by them of hundred,
>> thousands of amps, and they do NOT "develop a static
>> magnetism," how is it possible for current of millionths
>> of an amp to do it.
Good question.
> Here's my very non-technical, non expert opinion on the
> matter: it is understood that all electronic components
> do not behave ideally. Far from it.
Wrong. Electronic components including the resistors and capactors that
tweeks obsess over, do in fact generally behave as ideally as is necessary
to provide sonically-transparent operation.
> A resistor has some
> capacitance, capacitors have some inductance etc.
The areas of non-ideal operation have to be large enough to be relevant.
Contrary to some people's beliefs, there really are thresholds of audibility
for non-ideal operation, and they are often relatively huge.
> So I
> extrapolate that notion with the idea that any component
> that can support a magnetic field would probably have a
> tendency to store some magnetism.
Problem is, there is a defined magnetic property of materials called
remanance, which describes that property.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remanence
Many materials just don't have any remanance, and pure copper is one such
material.
Furthermore, remanance all by itself proves nothing. No inherent harm, no
inherent foul. There has to be some means by which the residual magnetic
field actually changes the audio signal to the degree that there is an
audible change.
As I pointed out above, audio gear can easily have very strong permanent
magnets built right into it. For example high end preamps with motorized
volume controls are very popular. What tweek has enhanced his high end
preamp by disabling the remote control faclity by removing the motor with
its *deadly* (!!!) permanant magnets. Do you realize how close the permanent
magnets in a motorized volume control are to the signal path? It doesn't
matter.
> A copper wire, for example. The amount it may store would be miniscule,
> but
> it may hold some.
It is well known that every physical effect, every deadly poison, every
potential catastrophe has a threshold below which it is known to be
practically safe. You know that the granite countertops in your kitchen are
emitting potentially deadly Radon gas, right? Shall we get you a crowbar so
you can save the lives of you and your family and remove them immediately?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/garden/24granite.html
> Same goes for the capacitor, IC, etc.
> Now, all these components that are in a speakers'
> crossover plus the voice coil may store just enough
> magnetism to cause that phase issue I mentione before.
It isn't significant. Speakers are so full of inherent phase shifts and time
delays that this is moot. Then we condescent to let the sound from the
speaker enter the listening room, and just about every allegedly bad time
delay and phase shift is swamped by room effects that are orders of
magnitude larger. Furthermore, the origional recording is full of similar
but even larger delays and phase shifts from the room in which the recording
was made.
> I may be wrong on the technical explanation, but I hope
> its enough to convey the idea I'm trying to get across.
What's coming accross is a basic priniciple of snake-oil audio - a complete
lack of understanding of the importance of quantifcation.
>> And how is it possible for those materials that COULD
>> "develop a static magnetism" (irons and steels) to
>> then have that reversed by currents of millionths of
>> an amp, far too small to overcome the coercivity in such
>> materials?
>
>>> You know, just as Arny Kruger mentioned deguassing
>>> old real to reel tapes with a degausser and slowly
>>> moving away, this demagic CD is doing the exact same
>>> thing.
That wasn't me, it was someone else. But he was talking about somthing
vastly different.
>> No, it's not, and this is further evidence that you do
>> NOT understand it. It;s substantially different in at
>> least one important factor: the field generated by a
>> degausser if MILLIONS of time stronger than the field
>> generated by the currents inside your audio system.
>> It HAS to be to overcome the coercivity of the magnetic
>> material in the tape. If the impressed field DOES NOT
>> exceed a critical threshold by a wide margin, no change
>> in the magnetization of the material occurs. And a few
>> microamps of signal passing through an audio system,
>> even a few amps passing through a voice coil is FAR too
>> small to work.
Agreed.
And, I know of no audiopiles who are ripping out all of their granite
countertops. Radon is deadly. It can cause lung cancer, as many miners have
discovered and died. Thing is, your kitchen isn't a Uranium mine.
> Sorry, I said its the exact same thing. I should have
> been more clear and said its the perfect analogy.
Taking it to be analogy completely misses the entirely valid issues that
were raised by Mr. Pierce.
If you want real fun, try to damage the data on floppy disc with a permanent
magnet. Modern magnetic recording materials have such high coercivity and
such excellent remanence of previouisly recorded information that it is
usualy mission impossbile.
> The magnitude of the field is not what I'm comparing when
> looking at the Demagic and tape degausser. It's the
> process.
The processes aren't similar because the quantities are vastly different.
> Both are generating a magnetic field.
All knives cut, but you must satisfy some rules of quantification and
actually draw the knife through something to cut it. Merely stroking the
knife through the air as if you were going to cut something does not
suffice.
> In order for the deguassing process to work properly one must move
> away very slowly.
For the degaussing process to work, there must be a magnetic field of
sufficient strength.
> This is analogous to the Demagic CD
> which fades away slowly. If you abruptly stop playing the
> CD in the middle, it would be just like turning off the
> degausser suddenly whilst in the middle of the degaussing
> process.
If your alleged degaussing field is even a tiny bit too small, there is no
demagnetization. In this case the degaussing field is tens of times too
small.
Please get a 3.5" floppy and try to degauss it with an ordinary fridge
magnet. Please post again when you cause your first detectable data error.
Of course, make sure that the floppy had good data on it to begin with. ;-)
Arny Krueger
news:6f5o56F...@mid.individual.net
> dpierce.ca...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> The ONLY ones who did NOT believe the world was
>> round where the uneducated and the religiously
>> superstitious, quite analogous to those who are not
>> well educated in electromagnetic theory who believe
>> in CD tweaks and the like, e.g., many high-end
>> audiophiles...
Yes, there are people who believe in demagnetizing completely non-magnetic
discs improves sound when there is no change in the data coming off the
disc, or its timing. A little chicken blood will make your stereo sound
better.
> The flat earth analogy applies to extremists on both
> sides of the tired debate, where faith and religion guide
> belief.
So what is this religion that you keep talking about?
We know what the anti-science extremists look like, what is the religion of
extreme science, and are there really any examples of it around here?
Sonnova
(in article <6f5ultF...@mid.individual.net>):
Even if electronic components such as resistors and capacitors (and even
wire) did not behave ideally, where has anyone shown that residual magnetism
(called remanance) would (if present) result in some adverse sonic effect? It
would seem to me that if the folks at DeMagic have come up with a cure for
some audio ill, they would do well to at least show that the sonic ill they
striving to eliminate actually exists. Seems to me that they are making an
assumption that "residual magnetism" in components not only exists, but is
detrimental to a stereo system's sound and as far as I know that presumption
is not in evidence.
out...@city-net.com
debate, where faith and religion guide belief."
There is a debate but not an impasse.
One side has test results which show that as one toggles blind/sighted the
reported perception effects of the other sied toggle accordingly.
The other side offers instead "I hear it, I really do, don't you believe
me"? All the time the "hear" toggles as above.
There is a debate only in the sense that responses continue to be offered.
There is a confusion that a response, any response, substitutes for a
convincing response or one that can be shown to fit the facts at hand
independent of the one making a claim.
There is a difference of opinion not a real debate, and opinion can be had
a dime the dozen at any bar any night of the week.
There is an assertion of being on an equal footing as to what can be
demonstrated instead of from the perspective of "in my opinion" on the
part of the subjective radical.
We have had a gentleman's agreement of "can't we all just get along?", and
indeed we can as long as we accept what can be shown in a repeated fashion
independent of any individual claim can not be brushed away with "flat
earth" or "we are at an impasse" comments.
Sonnova
(in article <g6lii...@news3.newsguy.com>):
> "C. Leeds" <clee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6f5o56F...@mid.individual.net
>> dpierce.ca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> The ONLY ones who did NOT believe the world was
>>> round where the uneducated and the religiously
>>> superstitious, quite analogous to those who are not
>>> well educated in electromagnetic theory who believe
>>> in CD tweaks and the like, e.g., many high-end
>>> audiophiles...
>
> Yes, there are people who believe in demagnetizing completely non-magnetic
> discs improves sound when there is no change in the data coming off the
> disc, or its timing. A little chicken blood will make your stereo sound
> better.
I've always found that a good Voodoo ceremony involving chicken blood and
chicken claws, especially around the speakers, is the way to go for getting
the most from them.
>
>> The flat earth analogy applies to extremists on both
>> sides of the tired debate, where faith and religion guide
>> belief.
>
> So what is this religion that you keep talking about?
The religion of $4000 cables, disc demagnetizers, green pens to paint CDs,
Myrtlewood blocks placed on components, "treated" digital clocks plugged into
the mains supply, IEC mains cables the size of one's forearm, etc. It's
called the religion of the Lunatic Fringe Audiophile. Enid Lumley is its
High-Priestess and double-blind testing is it's anti-Christ.
>
> We know what the anti-science extremists look like, what is the religion of
> extreme science, and are there really any examples of it around here?
Science SHOULD BE the absence of religion although, sometimes well meaning
scientists can be led astray by exuberance too.
codifus
> "codifus" <codi...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:g6i3d...@news2.newsguy.com
>
> > OK. I believe it so strongly and I'm prepared to prove it
> > with the tests you outlined.
>
> You're going to try some bias-controlled listening test?
Im am totally willing. Dick Pierce outlined a perfect setup. Does it
meet with your approval?
>
> > Now, let's say that I guess evertyhing correctly, would
> > my observaton then become fact?
>
> The phrase "Scientific fact" is an oxymoron. All findings of science are
> provisional, and only relelvant until we find out something bettter.
OK, here' we go. I phrased that incorrectly. Let's say I get the
correct answer for everything, what would you all still have to be
skeptical about? I would like to get this done in a definitive fashion
that everyone agrees on.
>
> >>> The CD is playing a tone. That tone manifests
> >>> itself as an electrical signal that goes through
> >>> your entire audio system. That electrical signal in
> >>> turn generates a magnetic field. The properties
> >>> of that generated magnetic field are such that it
> >>> neutralizes any static magnetism that may have
> >>> developed in the system.
>
> Whether you demagnetize it or not, an audio system is full of different
> examples of what you call static magnetism.
For the sake of clarity, the only magnetism we are concerned with is
within the audio path, the most of which is in the speaker, crossover,
voice coil etc.
>
> For example, a CD player has at least two motors. The motors are usually
> small DC motors with permanent magnet fields. These static magnetic fields
> are a the most just a few inches from analog audio signal paths.
>
> If static magnetism is such a sound quality problem, why hasn't every CD
> player manufacturer ditched DC motors?
>
> > this is so much technobabble.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > Like I said, I'm not expert in these fields. But I know
> > you understand what I'm trying to say.
>
> It's like listening to someone trying to explain how their perpetual motion
> machine works. They ain't gonna pass the next thermodynamics test, thinking
> like that!
>
> >> Why and how is this signal in any way different
> >> than EVERY OTHER SIGNAL that passes through
> >> an audio system that integrates to 0?
I don't know how or why it happens, I just know that I have had
speakers that have lost their ability to image properly. Once
Demagicked, they recovered.
Actually, you are WRONG. How does something, in fact, GENERALLY behave
ideally? It either does or doesn't. So say it. Don't use this vague
statement to try to get by.
> > A resistor has some
> > capacitance, capacitors have some inductance etc.
>
> The areas of non-ideal operation have to be large enough to be relevant.
> Contrary to some people's beliefs, there really are thresholds of audibility
> for non-ideal operation, and they are often relatively huge.
I don't agree or disagree.
>
> > So I
> > extrapolate that notion with the idea that any component
> > that can support a magnetic field would probably have a
> > tendency to store some magnetism.
>
> Problem is, there is a defined magnetic property of materials called
> remanance, which describes that property.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remanence
>
> Many materials just don't have any remanance, and pure copper is one such
> material.
And all speakers are made of just copper, right?
>
> Furthermore, remanance all by itself proves nothing. No inherent harm, no
> inherent foul. There has to be some means by which the residual magnetic
> field actually changes the audio signal to the degree that there is an
> audible change.
I don't need proof, just the possibility. My observations show that
something is happening.
>
> As I pointed out above, audio gear can easily have very strong permanent
> magnets built right into it. For example high end preamps with motorized
> volume controls are very popular. What tweek has enhanced his high end
> preamp by disabling the remote control faclity by removing the motor with
> its *deadly* (!!!) permanant magnets. Do you realize how close the permanent
> magnets in a motorized volume control are to the signal path? It doesn't
> matter.
>
OK, and?
> > A copper wire, for example. The amount it may store would be miniscule,
> > but
> > it may hold some.
>
> It is well known that every physical effect, every deadly poison, every
> potential catastrophe has a threshold below which it is known to be
> practically safe. You know that the granite countertops in your kitchen are
> emitting potentially deadly Radon gas, right? Shall we get you a crowbar so
> you can save the lives of you and your family and remove them immediately?
>
Don't doubt it. DId you also know that water can kill you if you drink
too much of it? I still drink alot of it. I'm a brave soul:)
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/garden/24granite.html
>
> > Same goes for the capacitor, IC, etc.
> > Now, all these components that are in a speakers'
> > crossover plus the voice coil may store just enough
> > magnetism to cause that phase issue I mentione before.
>
> It isn't significant. Speakers are so full of inherent phase shifts and time
> delays that this is moot. Then we condescent to let the sound from the
> speaker enter the listening room, and just about every allegedly bad time
> delay and phase shift is swamped by room effects that are orders of
> magnitude larger. Furthermore, the origional recording is full of similar
> but even larger delays and phase shifts from the room in which the recording
> was made.
All I am saying is that when a speaker has been suffuciently thrown
out of its specification such that it fails the mono test I keep
mentioning, playing the demagic CD sets it back. Music doesn't.
>
> > I may be wrong on the technical explanation, but I hope
> > its enough to convey the idea I'm trying to get across.
>
> What's coming accross is a basic priniciple of snake-oil audio - a complete
> lack of understanding of the importance of quantifcation.
>
I don't undertstand it, but I definitely heard it.
> >> And how is it possible for those materials that COULD
> >> "develop a static magnetism" (irons and steels) to
> >> then have that reversed by currents of millionths of
> >> an amp, far too small to overcome the coercivity in such
> >> materials?
Like I said, you play the Demagic CD as loud as you comfrotably can.
The louder it is the more effective it is.
>
> >>> You know, just as Arny Kruger mentioned deguassing
> >>> old real to reel tapes with a degausser and slowly
> >>> moving away, this demagic CD is doing the exact same
> >>> thing.
>
> That wasn't me, it was someone else. But he was talking about somthing
> vastly different.
>
> >> No, it's not, and this is further evidence that you do
> >> NOT understand it. It;s substantially different in at
> >> least one important factor: the field generated by a
> >> degausser if MILLIONS of time stronger than the field
> >> generated by the currents inside your audio system.
> >> It HAS to be to overcome the coercivity of the magnetic
> >> material in the tape. If the impressed field DOES NOT
> >> exceed a critical threshold by a wide margin, no change
> >> in the magnetization of the material occurs. And a few
> >> microamps of signal passing through an audio system,
> >> even a few amps passing through a voice coil is FAR too
> >> small to work.
Give me a freaking break! A rocket ship and a cruise ship are both
what? Ships. Yet the speeds with which they travel are different by
orders of magnitude. Once warp drive is invented, you know what
they'll call the vessel that carries people across the galaxies at
those speeds? A starship. These examples go to show that an analogy
can apply even though one factor may different by an extremely large
amount. It's the same basic concept.
>
> Agreed.
>
> And, I know of no audiopiles who are ripping out all of their granite
> countertops. Radon is deadly. It can cause lung cancer, as many miners have
> discovered and died. Thing is, your kitchen isn't a Uranium mine.
>
> > Sorry, I said its the exact same thing. I should have
> > been more clear and said its the perfect analogy.
>
> Taking it to be analogy completely misses the entirely valid issues that
> were raised by Mr. Pierce.
>
I still stand by the analogy and am now much much more eager to prove
it.
> If you want real fun, try to damage the data on floppy disc with a permanent
> magnet. Modern magnetic recording materials have such high coercivity and
> such excellent remanence of previouisly recorded information that it is
> usualy mission impossbile.
>
> > The magnitude of the field is not what I'm comparing when
> > looking at the Demagic and tape degausser. It's the
> > process.
>
> The processes aren't similar because the quantities are vastly different.
>
> > Both are generating a magnetic field.
>
> All knives cut, but you must satisfy some rules of quantification and
> actually draw the knife through something to cut it. Merely stroking the
> knife through the air as if you were going to cut something does not
> suffice.
>
What rule of quantification are referring to? And anyhow, as analogies
go, one thing is like another. It does not have to be exact. Rules are
only applied loosely.
> > In order for the deguassing process to work properly one must move
> > away very slowly.
>
> For the degaussing process to work, there must be a magnetic field of
> sufficient strength.
>
> > This is analogous to the Demagic CD
> > which fades away slowly. If you abruptly stop playing the
> > CD in the middle, it would be just like turning off the
> > degausser suddenly whilst in the middle of the degaussing
> > process.
>
> If your alleged degaussing field is even a tiny bit too small, there is no
> demagnetization. In this case the degaussing field is tens of times too
> small.
>
> Please get a 3.5" floppy and try to degauss it with an ordinary fridge
> magnet. Please post again when you cause your first detectable data error.
> Of course, make sure that the floppy had good data on it to begin with. ;-)
No, I will not. This is different. You're talking about it device that
was designed to hold data magnetically. A speaker is not designed to
hold data, period.
CD
Arny Krueger
news:g6lir...@news3.newsguy.com
> Even if electronic components such as resistors and
> capacitors (and even wire) did not behave ideally, where
> has anyone shown that residual magnetism (called
> remanance) would (if present) result in some adverse
> sonic effect?
With sighted evaluations, all things are possible.
I first became aware of obsession with residual magnetism and magnetic
materials in the 1970s. At that time some Japanese high end manufacturers
were flogging people's ignorance in this manner.
>It would seem to me that if the folks at
> DeMagic have come up with a cure for some audio ill, they
> would do well to at least show that the sonic ill they
> striving to eliminate actually exists.
It appears that by letting the snow fall freely, they've been able to build
up a niche in their market.
> Seems to me that
> they are making an assumption that "residual magnetism"
> in components not only exists, but is detrimental to a
> stereo system's sound and as far as I know that
> presumption is not in evidence.
Absolutely true. If anything, residual magnetism makes things work rather
than breaking things.
Harry Lavo
news:6f74diF...@mid.individual.net...
I am sorry, but it *is* an impasse.
The reason is, almost all claims of "science" with regard to audio
components revolve around ABX testing, or at least double-blind testing of
some sort. And while these tests are highly appropriate for audiometric
testing, they violate the cardinal principle of psychological test
design...they alter the variable under test...namely, listening for pleasure
and enjoyment (where differences and long term judgements and perceptions
arise from the sub-conscience). Good science, as opposed to handy science,
finds a way to design a test which measures the effect indirectly, in such
circumstances. At the very least, it designs and executes at least one such
test to validate that in fact the "shorthand" test does what it claims to do
in measuring the same thing with equally valid results. In the case of
audio, no organization has a financial interest in such testing, so it has
not been done. Its complexity and scope are beyond the logistical and
financial means of individuals.
When confronted with this issue, advocates of existing "shorthand"
methodology usually refuse to even acknowledge the issue, and usually end up
attacking the challengers as luddites. That is not science, it *is*
religion.
So we are at an impasse. The "scientists" say audio is a known art, and
our DBT tests prove it so. Others (and I am in this camp) say audio as it
applies to music reproduction may not be a completely known art; instead the
testing on its face may be at fault in promulgating this as myth. However,
such advocates lack the means of setting up the extensive and expensive test
required to get at, much less resolve, the issue.
bob
A "debate" in which one side has data, and the other side has no data,
is not properly termed an "impasse." It is properly termed a settled
question.
> The reason is, almost all claims of "science" with regard to audio
> components revolve around ABX testing, or at least double-blind testing of
> some sort. And while these tests are highly appropriate for audiometric
> testing, they violate the cardinal principle of psychological test
> design...they alter the variable under test...namely, listening for pleasure
> and enjoyment (where differences and long term judgements and perceptions
> arise from the sub-conscience).
If this were true, it would be a relevant consideration. But there is
absolutely no evidence that it is true. You cannot simply declare that
a test whose results you don't like has a flaw, Harry. You have to
demonstrate that flaw somehow. You never have.
That is why no one in the scientific community takes your objections
seriously.
bob
khu...@nospam.net
Not to mention, of course, all the physics and engineering used to
*create* said audio components. Science/disciplines which typically
refute the possibility of the vast majority of disputed claims (e.g.
cable myths).
> And while these tests are highly appropriate for audiometric
> testing, they violate the cardinal principle of psychological test
> design...they alter the variable under test...namely, listening for pleasure
> and enjoyment (where differences and long term judgements and perceptions
> arise from the sub-conscience).
This is a strawman you've been burning for years, and it is still a
strawman. You state that the variable under test is altered by the
methodology - you have no evidence of such. You can, as has been
pointed out to you ad nauseam, listen in any manner you want, for any
duration you want - months if you like - while doing an ABX study, or
any double blind A/B study.
I agree with your impasse assessment, however, since you clearly will
never accept this simple fact.
> Good science, as opposed to handy science,
> finds a way to design a test which measures the effect indirectly, in such
> circumstances. At the very least, it designs and executes at least one such
> test to validate that in fact the "shorthand" test does what it claims to do
> in measuring the same thing with equally valid results. In the case of
> audio, no organization has a financial interest in such testing, so it has
> not been done. Its complexity and scope are beyond the logistical and
> financial means of individuals.
Again you skate around the obvious. No such test validation is
required, when applied to the *specific* case. That is, the individual
who makes an extraordinary claim (lets say the efficacy of a mpingo disk
for example) based on a sighted evaluation, then uses the *EXACT* same
methodology adding only a blinding approach. Use A/B, ABChr, ABX,
relaxed casual listening, or ANY method you choose. The ONLY variable
is then the blinding. The whole concept of method validation is thus
moot, since the methods are identical, and the ONLY difference is lack
of visual clues. Absolutely no other variables are affected, and that
includes any performance anxiety related issues, insofar as the first
comparison - wherein the supposed difference was observed - was as much
a discrimination "test" as is the second, blinded comparison.
<snip>
Keith Hughes
bob
> OK, here' we go. I phrased that incorrectly. Let's say I get the
> correct answer for everything, what would you all still have to be
> skeptical about?
The cause of the effect. All we'd have is one experiment, the results
of which totally violate the laws of physics. Science wouldn't be
settled until we'd squared that circle. And the most likely
possibility would be that you'd done the experiment wrong, somehow.
Until you could explain *how* it works (and I do not mean hand-waving;
I mean demonstrating a measureable effect) there would still be plenty
to be skeptical about.
bob
Steven Sullivan
Nonsense, Harry. Go pick up a good book on experimental design. You'll
find that the idea of 'acclimation' is in there too, along with blind
testing. There is NOTHING to prevent your theoretical listener from
testing his imagination against reality...except fear of failure,
I suppose.
> Good science, as opposed to handy science,
> finds a way to design a test which measures the effect indirectly, in such
> circumstances.
It might, but you have to make the good case that it's necessary.
And that the 'indirect' effect actually maps to the 'direct' effect.
But why would blind testing be any good for 'audiometry' if it fails
for audio comparison? And why would it be used in psychoacoustics
research at all?
The 'impasse', Harry,a rises from the endless reflex to
special pleading from a 'subjectivist' side that is often
fundamentally anti-science.
Harry Lavo
news:6f9tv6F...@mid.individual.net...
I rest my case. I guess true "scientists" don't consider the social
sciences as "science".
Bob, you don't do a test and then have to prove that it gets in the way. In
psychological and social science design work, you design the test from the
beginning so it *can't* get in the way, or at least appears most logically
that it *shouldn't* get in the way. ABX fails miserably in this regard. To
start with, the nature of the task is different (conscious discrimination as
opposed to unconscious detection). The listening conditions are different.
The musical context is usually different. The inability to train (because
you don't know in advance what you are listening for) is different. And I
could go on and on.
There is no substitute for numbers in this. The only way to design such a
test is to have the subject listen to music in as natural a setting as
possible, perhaps to monitor certain neurological stimulus while doing so,
certainly to have scalar monadic rating after the fact, and then to comparee
LARGE NUMBERS of respondents across carefully matched samples. So thiere is
no CONSCIOUS discrimination involved. This has never been done to validate
individual double-blind discriminatory testing, and until it is done, the
test is simply an unproven vehicle for purposes of detecting musical
differences.
out...@city-net.com
and
> indeed we can as long as we accept what can be shown in a repeated
fashion
> independent of any individual claim can not be brushed away with "flat
> earth" or "we are at an impasse" comments.
I am sorry, but it *is* an impasse.
The reason is, almost all claims of "science" with regard to audio
components revolve around ABX testing, or at least double-blind testing of
some sort. And while these tests are highly appropriate for audiometric
testing, they violate the cardinal principle of psychological test
design...they alter the variable under test...namely, listening for
pleasure and enjoyment (where differences and long term judgements and
perceptions arise from the sub-conscience). Good science, as opposed to
handy science, finds a way to design a test which measures the effect
indirectly, in such circumstances. At the very least, it designs and
executes at least one such test to validate that in fact the "shorthand"
test does what it claims to do in measuring the same thing with equally
valid results."
I am sorry, this is but hand waving and special pleading. It reminds one
of the instant fall back defense when esp claimants routinely fail to
demonstrate by controlled testing their "powers". They say something to
the effect that the bad vibes from the skeptics present for the test
destroys the special context in which the powers are normally present.
If any thing such as the above claim is to be given equal consideration, it
is the burden of the claimant to demonstrate it.
That audio testing by listening alone works is conceded. To move the goal
posts by speculating that some other factor "X" is not being evaluated has
yet to be shown. No such is done where other human perception events such
as with the other senses are being evaluated. There is no reason to think
hearing is an exception.
Please read to the end for a discussion of the claimed "impasse".
"In the case of audio, no organization has a financial interest in such
testing, so it has not been done. Its complexity and scope are beyond the
logistical and financial means of individuals.
When confronted with this issue, advocates of existing "shorthand"
methodology usually refuse to even acknowledge the issue, and usually end
up attacking the challengers as luddites. That is not science, it *is*
religion.
So we are at an impasse. The "scientists" say audio is a known art, and
our DBT tests prove it so. Others (and I am in this camp) say audio as it
applies to music reproduction may not be a completely known art; instead
the testing on its face may be at fault in promulgating this as myth.
However, such advocates lack the means of setting up the extensive and
expensive test required to get at, much less resolve, the issue."
Leaving aside the red herring and strawman notions and barbs above, let us
turn to the claim of an impasse still existing.
I think not. It is like two teams of cancer researchers using different
methods and meeting at 6 months to evaluate results. Because results are
similar they declare an impasse as to which method is best in long term. At
12 months they meet again and one method is fading with a clear method
continuing to work. The impasse is declared broken.
At that moment a new person rushes in to declare that he speculates that
given a new method involving an as unyet shown factor "x" that has occurred
to him results will be different. He declares that there exists once again
the same impasse as 6 months ago until his new speculation is tested. But
it is unlikely to occur because of demands of time and money leaving the
impasse in place.
I think not. There is a body of test results with routinely similar
results showing that reported subjective perception events which toggle on
and off as the test is blind and sighted. That is the current state of
things and no other results on an equal footing nor at an impasse are
there to be considered.
Harry Lavo
news:6fbe8fF...@mid.individual.net...
<snip>
>
> I think not. There is a body of test results with routinely similar
> results showing that reported subjective perception events which toggle on
> and off as the test is blind and sighted. That is the current state of
> things and no other results on an equal footing nor at an impasse are
> there to be considered.
But nobody has corraborated that the test itself is not the reason the
sighted differences do not hold. That is the crux of the matter....until
the test (which is interventionist in nature) can be proven to provide
identical results to much more expensive and sophisticated testing that is
not interventionist, then the test itself has to be consider potentially
suspect. THAT is just good science.
khu...@nospam.net
Yes, they do. That's why they design discrimination tests for
discrimination, and they don't use *preference/acceptability* testing to
determine whether a *difference* exists.
>
> Bob, you don't do a test and then have to prove that it gets in the way. In
> psychological and social science design work, you design the test from the
> beginning so it *can't* get in the way, or at least appears most logically
> that it *shouldn't* get in the way. ABX fails miserably in this regard.
In your opinion. A micro-minority opinion based on available data.
> To
> start with, the nature of the task is different (conscious discrimination as
> opposed to unconscious detection).
A false constraint *you* apply. Not one inherent in the test. Sit back
and enjoy "A" for as long as you like. Sit back and enjoy "B" for as
long as you like. Sit back and enjoy "X" for as long as you like. At
the end, rate each using whatever scale you want. Do a significant
number of trials, and "X" should be easily identifiable as either "A" or
"B". A statistically significant level of correlation with the
correct A/B is a positive. No correlation, or correlation with the
incorrect A/B indicates a negative result. Exactly as your "monadic"
testing would do.
> The listening conditions are different.
A false constraint *you* apply. Not one inherent in the test.
> The musical context is usually different.
A false constraint *you* apply. Not one inherent in the test.
> The inability to train (because
> you don't know in advance what you are listening for) is different.
A totally bogus argument. In virtually ALL cases where this particular
debate arises, the subjective "difference" has already been observed,
under non-controlled conditions. So, clearly, *you* (as in the claimant
of the difference) are fully aware of what you are listening for.
You've already identified its character when present, and the character
when its lacking.
> And I could go on and on.
And you have, you have.
>
> There is no substitute for numbers in this.
This is just nonsense. The "numbers" are in; the vast majority of
people do not hear significant differences in cables, cable elevators,
rocks, etc. These products are not "niche" products because they matter
to large numbers of people.
Typically, here, we're starting with the *claim* by some individual or
group that some tweek has produced a subjectively identifiable physical
result. A result for which there is no known scientific basis, and
often just the opposite. One need only test this individual/group using
an appropriate methodology to prove/disprove (with a margin of error)
the accuracy of the claim. There is NO need to try and extrapolate this
to the general population, so test population size is irrelevant.
> The only way to design such a
> test is to have the subject listen to music in as natural a setting as
> possible, perhaps to monitor certain neurological stimulus while doing so,
> certainly to have scalar monadic rating after the fact, and then to comparee
> LARGE NUMBERS of respondents across carefully matched samples. So thiere is
> no CONSCIOUS discrimination involved.
Well, ignoring that test methodologies used for *preference* and for
*acceptability* are ill suited in the extreme for the purpose at hand,
please name even ONE instance where monadic testing does not require
conscious discrimination. For your claim to be true, participants would
have to be unaware that they were participating in a test (else they are
constantly comparing current product/stimuli to past experiences of
different product/stimuli), they have to have no *interest* in
determining whether the current product/stimuli is *acceptable* in
performance (unlikely in the extreme), and of course, they *cannot be
questioned about their impressions after the test concludes*. Such
questioning forces the CONSCIOUS discrimination (either acceptability
against personal criteria, or comparison to previous experience) you
continually rail against.
> This has never been done to validate
> individual double-blind discriminatory testing, and until it is done, the
> test is simply an unproven vehicle for purposes of detecting musical
> differences.
OSAF. All scientific studies on subjective data, that I'm aware of, are
conducted blind unless brand recognition is part of the design. This
includes all drug and medical device testing, even when there are
numerous objective criteria that can be, and are measured concurrent
with the subjective evaluations. That blind tests don't confirm your
results in no way invalidates them.
Keith Hughes
Arny Krueger
news:6fb704F...@mid.individual.net
> Bob, you don't do a test and then have to prove that it
> gets in the way.
More to the point, its not very wise to use a test that is known to be
subject to excessive false standard as your universal and final reference.
> In psychological and social science
> design work, you design the test from the beginning so it
> *can't* get in the way, or at least appears most
> logically that it *shouldn't* get in the way.
ABX was developed for exactly that reason. We tried a few DBT protocols, and
they got in the way. We then implemented ABX and found that it does a great
job of getting out of the way. ABX gets out of the way better than sighted
evaluations.
> ABX fails miserably in this regard.
By what standard?
> To start with, the nature of
> the task is different (conscious discrimination as
> opposed to unconscious detection).
Where is it written that listening pleasure as determined by *conscious*
perceptions is invalid or incomplete?
Is there any absolute proof that there even is such a thing as the
unconscious mind.
Is there a means for determining the state of this purported unconscious
mind in a reliable manner?
> The listening conditions are different.
ABX does not change the listening conditions.
> The musical context is usually different.
ABX does not change the musical context.
> The inability to train (because you don't
> know in advance what you are listening for) is different.
The essence of ABX is the availability of a known training reference. That
is what alternatives A and B are all about.
> And I could go on and on.
But would there be anything but one man's speculation?
Sonnova
(in article <g6o58...@news1.newsguy.com>):
There is nothing inconsistent here. An example of something generally
behaving ideally would be a component that behaves in a perfectly linear and
non-compromising manner in the passband where it is being used, but outside
of that passband may display non-linearity, too much capacitance, or too much
inductance, etc.
>>> A resistor has some
>>> capacitance, capacitors have some inductance etc.
>>
>> The areas of non-ideal operation have to be large enough to be relevant.
>> Contrary to some people's beliefs, there really are thresholds of audibility
>> for non-ideal operation, and they are often relatively huge.
>
> I don't agree or disagree.
>
>>
>>> So I
>>> extrapolate that notion with the idea that any component
>>> that can support a magnetic field would probably have a
>>> tendency to store some magnetism.
>>
>> Problem is, there is a defined magnetic property of materials called
>> remanance, which describes that property.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remanence
>>
>> Many materials just don't have any remanance, and pure copper is one such
>> material.
>
> And all speakers are made of just copper, right?
actually, MOST speakers are made of paper.
>> Furthermore, remanance all by itself proves nothing. No inherent harm, no
>> inherent foul. There has to be some means by which the residual magnetic
>> field actually changes the audio signal to the degree that there is an
>> audible change.
>
> I don't need proof, just the possibility. My observations show that
> something is happening.
Your "sighted" observations.
But you fail to explain what could possibly throw a speaker that far out of
kilter. This side of frying it with too much drive, I can't think of a thing.
>>
>>> I may be wrong on the technical explanation, but I hope
>>> its enough to convey the idea I'm trying to get across.
>>
>> What's coming accross is a basic priniciple of snake-oil audio - a complete
>> lack of understanding of the importance of quantifcation.
>>
>
> I don't undertstand it, but I definitely heard it.
You BELIEVE you heard it.
This is irrelevant to the point. Quantitative things have a threshold below
which they are ineffective. Try to cook a roast in an oven set to 120
degrees. It won't cook, even though 120 degrees of internal temperature is
the ideal temperature of medium-rare beef. You have to raise the temperature
to over 212 degrees before the beef will cook. Under that and the meat will
spoil, not cook.
A huge magnetic field might ruin a loudspeaker, but a tiny one, below the
threshold of permeability is like cooking a roast at 120 degrees. Nothing
will happen.
He's trying to show you the difference in the sizes of various magnetic
fields and how they determine the extent to which those things that are in
proximity to those fields are affected - something you seem bound and
determined not to acknowledge.
Steven Sullivan
> On Jul 29, 6:44?pm, "Harry Lavo" <hl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > I am sorry, but it *is* an impasse.
> A "debate" in which one side has data, and the other side has no data,
> is not properly termed an "impasse." It is properly termed a settled
> question.
> > The reason is, almost all claims of "science" with regard to audio
> > components revolve around ABX testing, or at least double-blind testing of
> > some sort. ?And while these tests are highly appropriate for audiometric
> > testing, they violate the cardinal principle of psychological test
> > design...they alter the variable under test...namely, listening for pleasure
> > and enjoyment (where differences and long term judgements and perceptions
> > arise from the sub-conscience).
> If this were true, it would be a relevant consideration. But there is
> absolutely no evidence that it is true. You cannot simply declare that
> a test whose results you don't like has a flaw, Harry. You have to
> demonstrate that flaw somehow. You never have.
"Devil's advocacy' has its place. But in the end, you need
to show examples that the disputed methodology actually caused
a problem. And for audio, you somehow have to do that without relying on *sighted*
results as counter-evidence.
The example used in an experimental design book I'm reviewing for
use in a class, was an experiment where mouse body temperature was
a measured variable in assessing a treatment.
The result of elevated temperature *seemed* to support
the hypothesis that the treatment had an effect, but it turned out that
just handling the mice during data collection got them excited enough to
raise their temperature. So the mice had to be acclimated to human handling,
before good data could be obtained.
Arny Krueger
> The reason is, almost all claims of "science" with regard
> to audio components revolve around ABX testing, or at
> least double-blind testing of some sort.
Not at all. There is considerable science with regard to audio components
relating to things like Ohms and Kirchoff's law, Fourier analysis, etc.
> And while these
> tests are highly appropriate for audiometric testing,
> they violate the cardinal principle of psychological test
> design...they alter the variable under test.
That is a hypothesis, not a generally accepted fact.
>.namely, listening for pleasure and enjoyment (where differences
> and long term judgments and perceptions arise from the
> sub-conscience).
That is another hypothesis, and again not a generally accepted fact.
Furthermore, if proven this hypothesis does not necessarily prove the first
hypothesis, above.
> Good science, as opposed to handy
> science, finds a way to design a test which measures the
> effect indirectly, in such circumstances.
The usual situation is where the people who make hypothesis like those
above, address their own hypothesis with their own applications of science.
However, certain aspects of high end audio seem to be technologies of
hypothesis without proof or even reliable evidence.
Codifus
that something is happening, and if I can do it time and time again, we
certainly would have something.
That's all I really want, acknowledgement that something is happening.
We could then go on and figure out why.
CD
Sonnova
(in article <6fb704F...@mid.individual.net>):
Please provide some documentation that shows that there actually is such a
phenomenon. Harley wrote an entire paper to the AES trying to push that
assertion. He was unable to prove that there was any difference between the
way people listen or hear in a long-term evaluation vs a double-blind test
either.
norman...@comcast.net
> I am sorry, but it *is* an impasse.
>
> The reason is, almost all claims of "science" with regard to audio
> components revolve around ABX testing, or at least double-blind testing of
> some sort. And while these tests are highly appropriate for audiometric
> testing, they violate the cardinal principle of psychological test
> design...they alter the variable under test...namely, listening for
> pleasure
> and enjoyment (where differences and long term judgements and perceptions
> arise from the sub-conscience). Good science, as opposed to handy
> science,
> finds a way to design a test which measures the effect indirectly, in such
> circumstances. At the very least, it designs and executes at least one
> such
> test to validate that in fact the "shorthand" test does what it claims to
> do
> in measuring the same thing with equally valid results. In the case of
> audio, no organization has a financial interest in such testing, so it has
> not been done. Its complexity and scope are beyond the logistical and
> financial means of individuals.
Let me see if I understand you: Although one could fail a standard DBT
between, say, 2 amplifiers, the Id can nevertheless sense a difference and
it will have an effect on one's long term enjoyment. Furthermore, it is
possible to design a suitable blind test that would confirm the difference,
only no commercial organization has any reason to run such a test and
publish the results, and no amateurs have the wherewithal to do so.
Is this a fair restatement of your argument?
Norm Strong
Edmund
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>> dpierce.ca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jul 18, 8:42 pm, renaissance...@i-plus.net wrote:
>>
> I googled "CD Optical Impedance Matching Fluid"
> and found this Stereophile article;
>
> http://stereophile.com/reference/590jitter/
>
> They tried a product called CD spotlight by Audio Prism and were
> surprised to find that it did make a difference.
>
> They then backed it up with a technical explanation as to why the
> difference was probably there. I am very much inclined to believe it.
This is really really funny!
My $ 40 DVD ReWriter copies a CD with 150 times the CD speed,
after that When I do a file compare between the original disk
and the copy, they are identical!!
I wonder why a $10.000 CD payer could not nearly read as good
at a speed which is 150 times slower!
OK, it is ONLY a 50 speed or so, whatever :-)
Edmund
bob
> Bob, you don't do a test and then have to prove that it gets in the way.
Of course not. You do the test, and then you wait for somebody else to
prove that there's something wrong with the test. That's how science
works in the real world, Harry, and that's what you still don't get.
You're the one making the assertion here. You're insisting that ABX
tests are flawed in some way. The burden of proof is on you, Harry,
not on the scientific community, which has no obligation to satisfy
the pseudo-scientific speculations of the ill-informed.
> ABX fails miserably in this regard.
Prove it. You can't just assert it, Harry. You have to prove it.
And you can't.
bob
Arny Krueger
news:6fbe8fF...@mid.individual.net
> The reason is, almost all claims of "science" with regard
> to audio components revolve around ABX testing, or at
> least double-blind testing of some sort.
This is not true.
There are other means to resolve many of the controversies at hand, without
resorting to DBTs.
For example, there are controversies over the audibility mystical properties
of wire wherein there are no known measurable differences. The claims of
science are not based on subjective tests at all.
For example, there are controversies over the presence of audible
differences where the nature of the differences is known to be less than
audible thresholds for the changes that are claimed and can be measured. The
claims of science are thus not based on subjective tests.
Harry Lavo
news:6fbntqF...@mid.individual.net...
I'm not talking about preference testing. I'm talking about monadic ratings
evaluating the "music". And then application of statistical techniquest
between monadic samples to determine discrimination. A standard test
technique...but one that masks the true object of the test and requires no
forced discrimination.
>>
>> Bob, you don't do a test and then have to prove that it gets in the way.
>> In
>> psychological and social science design work, you design the test from
>> the
>> beginning so it *can't* get in the way, or at least appears most
>> logically
>> that it *shouldn't* get in the way. ABX fails miserably in this regard.
>
> In your opinion. A micro-minority opinion based on available data.
No, standard scientific approach.
>
>> To
>> start with, the nature of the task is different (conscious discrimination
>> as
>> opposed to unconscious detection).
>
> A false constraint *you* apply. Not one inherent in the test. Sit back
> and enjoy "A" for as long as you like. Sit back and enjoy "B" for as
> long as you like. Sit back and enjoy "X" for as long as you like. At
> the end, rate each using whatever scale you want. Do a significant
> number of trials, and "X" should be easily identifiable as either "A" or
> "B". A statistically significant level of correlation with the
> correct A/B is a positive. No correlation, or correlation with the
> incorrect A/B indicates a negative result. Exactly as your "monadic"
> testing would do.
You clearly don't (or don't want to) understand what I am saying. The very
active of making conscious discrimination is different than the way
objectionable audio traits normally make themselves known.
>> The listening conditions are different.
>
> A false constraint *you* apply. Not one inherent in the test.
But as is almost always practiced in these tests that claim "no difference".
>
>> The musical context is usually different.
>
> A false constraint *you* apply. Not one inherent in the test.
But as is almost always practiced in these tests that claim "no difference".
>
>> The inability to train (because
>> you don't know in advance what you are listening for) is different.
>
> A totally bogus argument. In virtually ALL cases where this particular
> debate arises, the subjective "difference" has already been observed,
> under non-controlled conditions. So, clearly, *you* (as in the claimant
> of the difference) are fully aware of what you are listening for.
> You've already identified its character when present, and the character
> when its lacking.
I'm talking about testing music reproducing equipment to determine how well
it is liked, and why. That is how most audiophiles eventually reach a
conclusion...how the gear "sits" with them. The way to experimentally
duplicate that is simply to have people listen to music, and descibe how
well /what they like about it using scalars after the fact. Statistics can
then determine if their is a difference, either overall or on specific
musical attributes, between two systems, identical except for the pieces of
equipment under test.. This is a far more solid scientific test.
>
>> And I could go on and on.
>
> And you have, you have.
:-)
>>
>> There is no substitute for numbers in this.
>
> This is just nonsense. The "numbers" are in; the vast majority of
> people do not hear significant differences in cables, cable elevators,
> rocks, etc. These products are not "niche" products because they matter
> to large numbers of people.
I didn't say test among the unwashed masses....I said numbers. As in three
hundred audiophiles get exposed to this variable, and three hundred get
exposed to that one. As in three hundred audiophiles who prefer vinyl get
exposed to this variable, and three hundred audiophiles who prefer vinyl get
exposed to that variable, etc. Of course the subjects have to be screened
to constitute the appropriate audience, but there is no substitute for
*numbers*. Now do you see why a validation test is not simple nor
inexpensive?
>
> Typically, here, we're starting with the *claim* by some individual or
> group that some tweek has produced a subjectively identifiable physical
> result. A result for which there is no known scientific basis, and
> often just the opposite. One need only test this individual/group using
> an appropriate methodology to prove/disprove (with a margin of error)
> the accuracy of the claim. There is NO need to try and extrapolate this
> to the general population, so test population size is irrelevant.
You are putting a match to a strawman here, I'm afraid, since that is not
what I suggested.
>> The only way to design such a
>> test is to have the subject listen to music in as natural a setting as
>> possible, perhaps to monitor certain neurological stimulus while doing
>> so,
>> certainly to have scalar monadic rating after the fact, and then to
>> comparee
>> LARGE NUMBERS of respondents across carefully matched samples. So thiere
>> is
>> no CONSCIOUS discrimination involved.
>
> Well, ignoring that test methodologies used for *preference* and for
> *acceptability* are ill suited in the extreme for the purpose at hand,
> please name even ONE instance where monadic testing does not require
> conscious discrimination. For your claim to be true, participants would
> have to be unaware that they were participating in a test (else they are
> constantly comparing current product/stimuli to past experiences of
> different product/stimuli), they have to have no *interest* in
> determining whether the current product/stimuli is *acceptable* in
> performance (unlikely in the extreme), and of course, they *cannot be
> questioned about their impressions after the test concludes*. Such
> questioning forces the CONSCIOUS discrimination (either acceptability
> against personal criteria, or comparison to previous experience) you
> continually rail against.
Nobody is talking about a test methodology for preference. We are talking
about an evaluative methodology relating to the musical reproduction
experience. Any discrimination is provided by statistical analysis, and
since the measurement is indirect, it is not contaminated by an intervening
variable, as in a direc DBT or especially ABX.
>
>> This has never been done to validate
>> individual double-blind discriminatory testing, and until it is done, the
>> test is simply an unproven vehicle for purposes of detecting musical
>> differences.
>
> OSAF. All scientific studies on subjective data, that I'm aware of, are
> conducted blind unless brand recognition is part of the design. This
> includes all drug and medical device testing, even when there are
> numerous objective criteria that can be, and are measured concurrent
> with the subjective evaluations. That blind tests don't confirm your
> results in no way invalidates them.
How many scientists do you think predicted in advance that they would
discover that certain rythmic patterns seem hardwired into the human brain?
But they have. You can't use accepted dogma to rule out possibilities that
only rigorous testing can validate. And this includes test techniques and
variations, particularly ones that on the face of it present intervening
variables which is an absolute no-no in psychological testing.
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
>
> > "codifus" <codi...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:g6i3d...@news2.newsguy.com
>
> > > OK. I believe it so strongly and I'm prepared to prove it
> > > with the tests you outlined.
>
> > You're going to try some bias-controlled listening test?
>
> Im am totally willing. Dick Pierce outlined a perfect setup.
No, I didn't. I outlined merely ONE setup as a starting
point to help design an experiment. There's any number
of conrols that need to be put in place to ensure that
as many variables are controlled or understood as
possible.
> Does it meet with your approval?
Do you understand why I suggested what I did?
> > > Now, let's say that I guess evertyhing correctly, would
> > > my observaton then become fact?
>
> > The phrase "Scientific fact" is an oxymoron. All findings of science are
> > provisional, and only relelvant until we find out something bettter.
>
> OK, here' we go. I phrased that incorrectly. Let's say I get the
> correct answer for everything, what would you all still have to be
> skeptical about?
You entrie explanation as to the cause is, to put
it frankly, ridiculous. You, on the one hand, state
that you're no expert, and on the other you then
hold forth and profer "explanantions" for physical
causes which are out beyond the left field bleachers.
> I would like to get this done in a definitive fashion
> that everyone agrees on.
That's assuming "everyone" thinks the rather large
amount of effort is worth it.
To be honest and meaning no disrespect, your
intransigence and refusal to entertainthe
possibility that you, as an admitted NON-expert
in the field, are either unwilling or unable to
consider the possibility that your conclusions
and you explanations are faulty. You offer what
is, to be honest, almost laughably naive explanations
of how electromangetics work without being able
or willing to see the obvious self-contradictions and
flaws in your science, and then run and hide behind
the apron of "we don't know everything."
We don't need to know everything to recognize when
something is horribly and fatally flawed.
And what you don't realize is MANY of us have
gone through this very same set of claims, MANY
times before, and they have been found wanting
EVERY time.
Why are you any different?
> For the sake of clarity, the only magnetism we are concerned with is
> within the audio path, the most of which is in the speaker, crossover,
> voice coil etc.
Then tell us the following:
1. What parts of the speaker ARE magnetized?
2. How did they get that way?
3. If they ARE that way, how and why does it cause
the problem you're claiming?
4. How and why does this "magic" CD do its work?
5. If the CD ONLY works once, as you claim, what is
preventing the speaker from taking on the original
problem again?
> I don't know how or why it happens, I just know that I have had
> speakers that have lost their ability to image properly. Once
> Demagicked, they recovered.
Maybe, well, it's "magic."
> > > Here's my very non-technical, non expert opinion on the
> > > matter: it is understood that all electronic components
> > > do not behave ideally. Far from it.
>
> > Wrong. Electronic components including the resistors and capactors that
> > tweeks obsess over, do in fact generally behave as ideally as is necessary
> > to provide sonically-transparent operation.
>
> Actually, you are WRONG. How does something, in fact, GENERALLY behave
> ideally? It either does or doesn't. So say it. Don't use this vague
> statement to try to get by.
Look, you have already admitted that you are not
an expert. WHy do you then insist on talking as if
you are.
What was stated, and is ABSOLUTELY correct, is
that "ideal behavior" is not a black-and-white issues.
A component, for example, could have gossly non-
ideal property that, for the application it is used in,
is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Take an example that
is trivial: I have a resistor component that exhibits
some grossly non-linear behavior at temperatures
above 75C. If the temperature never exceeds 50C,
then its non-ideal behavior above 75C is COMPLETELY
irrelevant.
Or consider a capacitor that has .025 uH of lead
inductance and the equivalent of about 5 MOhms
of leakage resistance. Non-ideal, right? But if that
capacitor is used in a ciscuit where it's bypassed
by a 5 kOhm resistor and never sees any frequecies
above 20 kHz, the non-ideal indictance and leakage
resistance has NO relevance on its behavior in the
circuit.
And both you and the manufacturer of the "magic"
CD have NEVER ONCE offered ANY credible
explanation of:
1. The very existance of these "static magnetic"
fields in components,
2. That IF these "static magnetic" fields did, indeed
exists, how they got there,
3. That if they exist, how and why they have a
deleterious effect as claimed on the audio,
4. How and why this "magic" CD corrects the
problems which you have never demonstrated
even exist to begin with.
> > Many materials just don't have any remanance,
> > and pure copper is one such
> > material.
>
> And all speakers are made of just copper, right?
Look, if you're going to be silly bordering on the
point of insulting, then you can argue with yourself.
What's your point here?
Are you insisting that all components of a speaker
must have their static magnetic field removed?
Please explain how the speaker would work after
that?
Please explain that if it is the capacitors and
inductors and resistors and terminals that are
getting this "static magnetic field," and your "magic
CD" gets rid of it, why does this "static magnetic field"
not INSTANTLY return in the presence of the leakage
field resulting fromthe close proximity of the speaker
magnet?
> I don't need proof, just the possibility. My observations show that
> something is happening.
And, for myself, I am not disputing that observation.
Rather I am disputing your totally bogus attempts
and invoking bad physics to explain it, that you are
utterly unwilling to entertain the possibility that your
explanations are wrong, and that you are unwilling
or unable to accept the very STRONG possibility that
tyou have failed to identify and eliminate in ANY
credible fashion whatsoever alternate explanations
for your observation, INCLUDING but not limited to
expectation bias, suggestability, demonstrably poor
detailed auditory memory, exceptionally poor
experimental control, and much more.
Earlier, you said:
> > > A copper wire, for example. The amount it may store
> > > would be miniscule, but it may hold some.
You have a number of problems here:
1. You ASSUME "it may hold some." Your entire
premise seems to be based on that assumption.
But what if your assumption is WRONG?
2. You assume that if it DID "hold some," that is
MUST have some audible effect. But what if
your assumption is wrong?
3. You assume that if it DID hold some and if it
DID have some audible effect, that the effect
would lead to your observation. But whiat is
your assumption is wrong?
4. You assume that if it did hold some and if it
did have some audible effect and if that audible
effect lead to your observation, the "magic CD"
would correct it. But what if your assumption was
wrong.
> Don't doubt it. DId you also know that water can kill you if you drink
> too much of it?
It appears you have failed to see the point of your own
analogy.
> All I am saying is that when a speaker has been suffuciently thrown
> out of its specification such that it fails the mono test I keep
> mentioning, playing the demagic CD sets it back. Music doesn't.
Speakers can be thown "sufficiently out of their own
specifications" by ANY number of means. Changing
environmental factors such as tempearature and
humidity will result in large changes. The temperature
of the magnet and voice voil make a large difference,
Letting a speaker sit unplayed for a period of time
will result in changes in its performance. Playing a
speaker at an elevated level will change its performance.
> > > I may be wrong on the technical explanation, but I hope
> > > its enough to convey the idea I'm trying to get across.
>
> > What's coming accross is a basic priniciple of snake-oil audio - a complete
> > lack of understanding of the importance of quantifcation.
>
> I don't undertstand it, but I definitely heard it.
Maybe you did, maybe you didn't. I'm not going to
dispute whather you did or didn't, if for no other reason
than it gets into a useless argument with no possibility
of resolution. For one thing, your experimental design is
SO poor, no real conclusion could be drawn.
But you have chosen to hold forth on a TECHNICAL
explanation that is so TECHNICALLY bogus that
it throws your whole claim into serious credibitity
meltdown.
> Like I said, you play the Demagic CD as loud as you comfrotably can.
> The louder it is the more effective it is.
And what have you done to eliminate ALL other
possibe explananations?
> > >> No, it's not, and this is further evidence that you do
> > >> NOT understand it. It;s substantially different in at
> > >> least one important factor: the field generated by a
> > >> degausser if MILLIONS of time stronger than the field
> > >> generated by the currents inside your audio system.
> > >> It HAS to be to overcome the coercivity of the magnetic
> > >> material in the tape. If the impressed field DOES NOT
> > >> exceed a critical threshold by a wide margin, no change
> > >> in the magnetization of the material occurs. And a few
> > >> microamps of signal passing through an audio system,
> > >> even a few amps passing through a voice coil is FAR too
> > >> small to work.
>
> Give me a freaking break! A rocket ship and a cruise ship are both
> what? Ships. Yet the speeds with which they travel are different by
> orders of magnitude. Once warp drive is invented, you know what
> they'll call the vessel that carries people across the galaxies at
> those speeds? A starship. These examples go to show that an analogy
> can apply even though one factor may different by an extremely large
> amount. It's the same basic...
IN a word, kind sir, b*llsh*t.
You CLEARLY have no the slightest clue what you
are talking about. You have NO idea about the VERY
non-linear process of magnetization in materials.
You come up with preposterous "analogies" and
"extrapolations" which have NO physical analog and
in fact, are quite defintiely in complete contradiction
of demonstrated physical behavior, and you hold on
to them, for dear life.
No, give yourself a break, here, and stop being silly.
You analogies are nice, neat, comfortable, simple,
and do a good job of explaining what you believe.
Thay are also wrong.
It's as simple as that.
out...@city-net.com
But nobody has corraborated that the tests are the reason that the esp
powers fail to appear. Otherwise known as special pleading.
All tests from simple put a cloth over the connections to complex abx
tests have similar results.
Here is the test that reveals all and has been done.
A group of people are given sighted access to two bits of audio gear and
are told a switch is made and asked to provide subjective results of
differences produced accordingly. As each switch is announced they
provide clearly different reports of perception events accordingly.
But no actual electrical switch was made and the clearly different reports
were made.
No impasse remains as there was in this case a test of the impact being
sighted has upon reported perception events. We are then free to make the
same special pleading that sighted testing need be first validated, that
is only good science.
Until the speculative cancer method is first tested then the two existing
methods which provide clear results are not corraborated and an impasse
exists.
I think not.
Harry Lavo
news:6fbth9F...@mid.individual.net...
> "Harry Lavo" <hl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:6fb704F...@mid.individual.net
>
>> Bob, you don't do a test and then have to prove that it
>> gets in the way.
>
> More to the point, its not very wise to use a test that is known to be
> subject to excessive false standard as your universal and final reference.
I assume you are talking about sighted testing. I am not.
>> In psychological and social science
>> design work, you design the test from the beginning so it
>> *can't* get in the way, or at least appears most
>> logically that it *shouldn't* get in the way.
>
> ABX was developed for exactly that reason. We tried a few DBT protocols,
> and
> they got in the way. We then implemented ABX and found that it does a
> great
> job of getting out of the way. ABX gets out of the way better than sighted
> evaluations.
In determining what?
>> ABX fails miserably in this regard.
>
> By what standard?
By the standard of allowing subjective impressions to emerge rather than
conscious differences. It is these subjective impressions that ultimately
determine one's long term satisfaction with the equipment.
>
>> To start with, the nature of
>> the task is different (conscious discrimination as
>> opposed to unconscious detection).
>
> Where is it written that listening pleasure as determined by *conscious*
> perceptions is invalid or incomplete?
Read the literature.
>
> Is there any absolute proof that there even is such a thing as the
> unconscious mind.
You've got to be kidding, right?
>
> Is there a means for determining the state of this purported unconscious
> mind in a reliable manner?
A great deal of psychological testing is devoted to it.
>> The listening conditions are different.
>
> ABX does not change the listening conditions.
I'm sorry, as practiced it does. I do not listen to symphonies sitting with
headphones on at a computer trying to determine whether a or b sounds like
x.
>
>> The musical context is usually different.
>
> ABX does not change the musical context.
As practiced, it usually does. You and Nousaine are both big advocates that
you should be carrying around select snippets of sound to "demonstrate"
difference. That relates to me listening to Lenny Bernstein conduct Mahler
how?
>
>> The inability to train (because you don't
>> know in advance what you are listening for) is different.
>
> The essence of ABX is the availability of a known training reference. That
> is what alternatives A and B are all about.
I'm talking about the music.....when you first start to evaluate a piece of
gear you have a tabula rosa....what emerges you do not know in advance.
>> And I could go on and on.
>
> But would there be anything but one man's speculation?
Yes, there would be....but not if you refuse to open your mind.
bob
> bob wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 6:23 pm, codifus <codi...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >> OK, here' we go. I phrased that incorrectly. Let's say I get the
> >> correct answer for everything, what would you all still have to be
> >> skeptical about?
>
> > The cause of the effect. All we'd have is one experiment, the results
> > of which totally violate the laws of physics. Science wouldn't be
> > settled until we'd squared that circle. And the most likely
> > possibility would be that you'd done the experiment wrong, somehow.
> > Until you could explain *how* it works (and I do not mean hand-waving;
> > I mean demonstrating a measureable effect) there would still be plenty
> > to be skeptical about.
>
> > bob
>
> True, but it would be a start, no? If I can demonstrate, definitively,
> that something is happening, and if I can do it time and time again, we
> certainly would have something.
No, my point is that your test cannot be definitive. All it can do is
raise questions. And the first question it will raise will be, how did
he cook the test?
There's a great quote from a scientist in Natalie Angier's book, The
Canon:
"Most of the time, when you get an amazing, counterintuitive result,
it means you screwed up the experiment.”
bob
bob
> I'm not talking about preference testing. I'm talking about monadic ratings
> evaluating the "music". And then application of statistical techniquest
> between monadic samples to determine discrimination. A standard test
> technique...
No, it's not--not for determining whether there's a perceptual
difference between two stimuli. The kind of test you describe here is
only used when the objects under test are already known to be
perceptibly different. So it's totally inappropriate for the purposes
of challenging ABX results.
> but one that masks the true object of the test and requires no
> forced discrimination.
A silly, made-up "requirement." Audiophiles discriminate all the time.
Every claim that two components sound different is an act of
discrimination. So why can't they do that blind?
<snip>
> I'm talking about testing music reproducing equipment to determine how well
> it is liked, and why. That is how most audiophiles eventually reach a
> conclusion...how the gear "sits" with them. The way to experimentally
> duplicate that is simply to have people listen to music, and descibe how
> well /what they like about it using scalars after the fact. Statistics can
> then determine if their is a difference, either overall or on specific
> musical attributes, between two systems, identical except for the pieces of
> equipment under test.. This is a far more solid scientific test.
OSAF. You can't claim something is "a far more solid scientific test"
when it's never even been tried.
<snip>
> I didn't say test among the unwashed masses....I said numbers. As in three
> hundred audiophiles get exposed to this variable, and three hundred get
> exposed to that one. As in three hundred audiophiles who prefer vinyl get
> exposed to this variable, and three hundred audiophiles who prefer vinyl get
> exposed to that variable, etc. Of course the subjects have to be screened
> to constitute the appropriate audience, but there is no substitute for
> *numbers*. Now do you see why a validation test is not simple nor
> inexpensive?
No, the reason it's not simple or inexpensive is that you have to make
sure it'll never be carried out.
<snip>
> Nobody is talking about a test methodology for preference. We are talking
> about an evaluative methodology relating to the musical reproduction
> experience. Any discrimination is provided by statistical analysis, and
> since the measurement is indirect, it is not contaminated by an intervening
> variable, as in a direc DBT or especially ABX.
Again, you have no evidence that there *is* an intervening variable.
That would be the first step, Harry. Get busy.
bob
Harry Lavo
news:g6qti...@news4.newsguy.com...
No, Norm, it does not. What I said has no relationship to the Id, which is
part of the Freudian construct of the Psyche, which relates to human
personality. The Id is a Freudian construct that resides in the unconscious
part of the brain, but does not constitute it. From Wikepedia: "It should
be stressed that, even though the model is "structural" and makes reference
to an "apparatus", the id, ego and super-ego are functions of the mind
rather than parts of the brain and do not correspond to actual somatic
structures of the kind dealt with by neuroscience".
The "kind dealt with by neuroscience" is what I am talking about.
If you replace "Id" in your statement above with "unconscious"
(Merriam-Webster: 1 a: not knowing or perceiving : not aware ; 2 b (1): not
marked by conscious thought, sensation, or feeling ), and if you preface
that statement with "in the long term", then it can serve as a reasonably
accurate summary. In other words, "Although one could fail a standard DBT
between, say, 2 amplifiers, in the long term the unconscious can sense a
difference and it will have an effect on one's long term enjoyment".
Part of what audiophiles often struggle with is sensing this "unconscious
uneasiness (or easiness...it works both ways)" and encouraging it into
consciousness so they can identify it and discuss it. But the important
part is: by definition the unconscious is incohate and unavailable, and thus
cannot operate either at the conscious level or in a forced short term time
frame. Both are conditions of a structured DBT like ABX.
Interestingly enough, these "effects on the conscious/unconcious edge" also
confond the "null" mathematics of the standard ABX test. Psychologists
report such phenomenon reveal themselves as percentages of perception. In
other words, even though the difference is real, as it is lowered towards
the edge of perception, the reporting of the phenomenon is expressed as
"percentage of times perceived". This is a different probability than the
standard null hypothesis calculation where the existence of a real
difference is not known.
That was the basis of a critique of the original Clark article published in
the JAES a year after that article appeared by a professor of psychology who
should how the probability of perception of a real albeit marginally
subliminal difference interacted with standard null probability calculations
to throw those calculations off slightly within the small sample sizes used
for ABX testing. The practical effect was great enough to sometimes cause a
one-sample deviation in what triggered the 95% significance standard.
Unfortunately this article was turgid and was heavily laden with
mathematics, and while it drew response from the Clark and Nousaine and
others, it was apparent that few of them really understood the mathematics
or their implications. It is also clear that the mathematics and general
turgidity of the article failed to catch the interest of the audio
profession, who essentially ignore it to this day. (To avoid criticism, I
have copies of the original Clark article, this article, and others....but I
have mislaid them in a consolidation of my office into new space and cannot
lay my hands on them to include the cites here).
Harry Lavo
news:g6qt2...@news4.newsguy.com...
And yet some have rediculed John Atkinson's anecdote about choosing an
amplifier after a dbt showed it to be no different from another that he
honored, and yet giving it up after two years because of continual
irritation with some aspects of its sound that arose due to long term
listening. This of course will be dismissed as the result of "sighted
listening bias" with no proof that it is....the equivalence of attributing
the "elevated temperature" of the mouse to the treatment in the example
cited below rather than looking for other rational possibilities...including
possible flaws in the original test.
> The example used in an experimental design book I'm reviewing for
> use in a class, was an experiment where mouse body temperature was
> a measured variable in assessing a treatment.
> The result of elevated temperature *seemed* to support
> the hypothesis that the treatment had an effect, but it turned out that
> just handling the mice during data collection got them excited enough to
> raise their temperature. So the mice had to be acclimated to human
> handling,
> before good data could be obtained.
Which is why it is annoying that any evidence that disputes DBT (especially
ABX) results is dismissed by advocates without any further investigation,
and is simply written off as "sighted bias".
Harry Lavo
> On Jul 30, 9:00 am, "Harry Lavo" <hl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Bob, you don't do a test and then have to prove that it gets in the way.
>
> Of course not. You do the test, and then you wait for somebody else to
> prove that there's something wrong with the test. That's how science
> works in the real world, Harry, and that's what you still don't get.
> You're the one making the assertion here. You're insisting that ABX
> tests are flawed in some way. The burden of proof is on you, Harry,
> not on the scientific community, which has no obligation to satisfy
> the pseudo-scientific speculations of the ill-informed.
No, Bob....I am arguing that they are an inappropriate test for dealing with
long term satisfaction with audio components in the reproduction of music.
The tests are fine for listening to different distortion levels, volume
levels, frequency response characteristics, etc. (audiometric measurements).
Those are not music.
>> ABX fails miserably in this regard.
>
Note: you've taken this totally apart from it's context...the "failed
miserably" refers to not presenting an intervening variable.
I've tried to show on a logical basis how it may do this and why the results
do not seem to square with a lot of reported experience. Moreover, I have
spent considerable time on this forum (more in the past than present) laying
out test approaches that would prove or disprove what I am
hypothesizing....but unfortunately neither I nor you have the resources to
undertake that kind of testing. So it remains a hypthosis...I don't deny
that.
> Prove it. You can't just assert it, Harry. You have to prove it.
>
> And you can't.
Give me a two hundred thousand dollar grant and two years to organize it,
and I'll either prove it or disprove it. All I have argued is that a giant
question remains.
Sadly this arena reflects the same kind of sickness that pervades our
political arena today....people take way over simplified "one-line"
positions and rely on name-calling ("satisfy the pseudo-scientific
speculations of the ill-informed") to substitute for meaningful discorse.
Harry Lavo
news:6fcd96F...@mid.individual.net...
This is the oldest bugaboo in the discussion. Obviously people can be
fooled. Obviously there is such a thing as sighted bias. Obviously double
blind testing can get rid of sighted bias. So can blinded monadic testing.
That is not what is being argued here.
What is being argued is whether or not ABX same/difference testing in
particular (which has become the industry standard) forces a consciouness
that potentially obliterates musical nuances arising in part from the
subconscious that are important long term, and which create or distroy
audiophile listening satisfaction. That is what an "intervening variable"
is in psychological parlance....a test technique that potentially changes
the "what" of what is being tested.
bob
> No, Bob....I am arguing that they are an inappropriate test for dealing with
> long term satisfaction with audio components in the reproduction of music.
> The tests are fine for listening to different distortion levels, volume
> levels, frequency response characteristics, etc. (audiometric measurements).
> Those are not music.
Baseless opinion.
> >> ABX fails miserably in this regard.
>
> Note: you've taken this totally apart from it's context...the "failed
> miserably" refers to not presenting an intervening variable.
>
> I've tried to show on a logical basis how it may do this and why the results
> do not seem to square with a lot of reported experience.
Logic doesn't do you any good if it derives from mistaken facts--or,
in your case, non-facts. Everything you assert is a baseless opinion,
generally in opposition to known science. That kind of logic is
useless.
> Moreover, I have
> spent considerable time on this forum (more in the past than present) laying
> out test approaches that would prove or disprove what I am
> hypothesizing....but unfortunately neither I nor you have the resources to
> undertake that kind of testing. So it remains a hypthosis...I don't deny
> that.
No, you've spent considerable time insisting that the only thing that
will satisfy you is a pointless, unproven, impossible-to-accomplish
test you can't even specify properly, which is very convenient if your
agenda is to continue to avoid the real science that's been done
already. Fortunately, real scientists have more effective ways of
answering questions.
bob
Steven Sullivan
That article was about Type I and II errors, essentially. The author was Les Leventhal.
First, often 'marginal effects' seem to be readily discernable to 'golden ears' ,
'sagain, in that instance, ALL that is requried to test THEIR claim (not the
blanket question of 'can ANYONE hear a difference between these?" ) is to retest them under
blind conditions.
Second, one consequences of a 'marginal' effect is that to prove its existence, one would want
to raise the Type I margin to something like a *99%* significance standard.