Black Colour and Jitter
Chelvam
again. Apparently black reduces jitter.
"A black tray, to reduce the jitter and to increase the quality of the
burned CD". see
http://www.plextor.be/products/dvd_recorders/px-708a.asp?choice=PX-708A
and
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/dvd-roundup_3.html
BTW, is it possible for black pen/marker to improve audio CD sound?
Physicists tell us that black absorbs almost all colours. It can absorb
stray red , green, white etc, etc light which may be still bouncing in the
CD.
p.s.
Disclaimer:
I assumes no reponsibility for injuries sufferred by engineers and
physicists while rolling on the floor laughing.
Stewart Pinkerton
>If you think some audiophiles are weirdo for believing green pens, think
>again. Apparently black reduces jitter.
No, it doesn't, but some weirdos have certainly *claimed* that it
does..............
>
> "A black tray, to reduce the jitter and to increase the quality of the
>burned CD". see
>http://www.plextor.be/products/dvd_recorders/px-708a.asp?choice=PX-708A
>
>and
>
>http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/dvd-roundup_3.html
>
>
>BTW, is it possible for black pen/marker to improve audio CD sound?
No.
>Physicists tell us that black absorbs almost all colours. It can absorb
>stray red , green, white etc, etc light which may be still bouncing in the
>CD.
None of which can possibly have *any* effect on the datastream being
read off the disc. How many times does this have to be explained? The
reflected beam from the reading laser is *hundreds* of times more
intense than any possible reflection from the edge of the disc, and
*thousands* of times more intense than any possible extraneous
interfering source, and it only has to provide a zero/one
discrimination. It's probably the most rugged and reliable data source
ever invented.
>p.s.
>Disclaimer:
>I assumes no reponsibility for injuries sufferred by engineers and
>physicists while rolling on the floor laughing.
A very wise legal precaution..............
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Chelvam
news:VLfFc.12652$MB3.11553@attbi_s04...snip...snip..
>
> None of which can possibly have *any* effect on the datastream being
> read off the disc. How many times does this have to be explained?
The reason why this question pops up often is because statements like yours
indirectly imply many music lovers who heard the difference were individuals
suffering from psychotic disorders . Not in so many words but that's the
conclusion one can make. we failed the DBT, our claim could not be
scientifically proven and therefor we must be hallucinating.
Many do not care much what the engineers say and they carry on with their
hobby believing in snake oil but for a few, like myself , who sincerely
believe that some claims by the peddlers of snake oil do not make sense to
our limited knowledge of 'how stuff work" join forums like RAHE to
understand 'why' or 'why not'.
That's the reason I pose questions or reference. As you said, green pen
tweek was started as a April fool joke. But why should Plextor and Pioneer
start another myth without any scientific data to back them up. Perhaps,
they do not know about DBT or perhaps they do not care about DBT. Or maybe
DBT is not a credible method that's recognised by the engineering authority.
(Plextor claims they do have lab test to prove.)
>The reflected beam from the reading laser is *hundreds* of times more
> intense than any possible reflection from the edge of the disc, and
> *thousands* of times more intense than any possible extraneous
> interfering source, and it only has to provide a zero/one
> discrimination. It's probably the most rugged and reliable data source
> ever invented.
I am going experiment this by shining strong light on the CD, please tell me
if I should take any special precaution during the experiment. Secondly,
will the strong light cause any damage to the sensitive photo something in
the laser mechanism.
> >p.s.
> >Disclaimer:
> >I assume no reponsibility for injuries sufferred by engineers and
> >physicists while rolling on the floor laughing.
>
> A very wise legal precaution..............
Thank you.
Chelvam
Despite my best effort I am unable to find the Plextor technical explanation
why black tray makes better copies. There was one press release by Plextor
which claimed that Plextor Lab tests found black tray reduces C1 errors.
(link http://www.plextor.com/english/news/press/pr05312002.html )
The other link
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Articles/Specific.asp?ArticleHeadline=PleXWr
iter+PX-W4824A&Series=0 gave an explanation which was somewhat similar to
green marker/pen unscientific explanation.
Being starved for a logical explanation, I surfed for more info and found
another Urban Legend. In this urban legend, the writer claimed copies burned
on a black CD sounded superior to the original. This legend carries no
monetary gain for his products. See
http://www.genesisloudspeakers.com/whitepaper/Black_CDsII.pdf
Most of what he said confirmed my initial findings about burned CDs. Being
someone who is slow to dismiss anything outright, I find it more than
coincidence that I found that burned CD sounded different. All these years,
my understanding of digital audio was you can make exact copies of the
original. I do not know about jitter, laughed at resonance control and
cones. These discovery were made because I heard them. ABX and DBT aside.
Disclaimer:
I assume no reponsibility for injuries sufferred by engineers and
Don Pearce
wrote:
>"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:VLfFc.12652$MB3.11553@attbi_s04...
>> On 1 Jul 2004 22:42:55 GMT, "Chelvam" <che...@myjaring.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>snip...snip..
>>
>> None of which can possibly have *any* effect on the datastream being
>> read off the disc. How many times does this have to be explained?
>
>The reason why this question pops up often is because statements like yours
>indirectly imply many music lovers who heard the difference were individuals
>suffering from psychotic disorders . Not in so many words but that's the
>conclusion one can make. we failed the DBT, our claim could not be
>scientifically proven and therefor we must be hallucinating.
>
Neither psychotic nor hallucinating - just a normal human being with
normal human failings.
>Many do not care much what the engineers say and they carry on with their
>hobby believing in snake oil but for a few, like myself , who sincerely
>believe that some claims by the peddlers of snake oil do not make sense to
>our limited knowledge of 'how stuff work" join forums like RAHE to
>understand 'why' or 'why not'.
>
This is fine, but you must understand that there is a huge difference
between "heard the difference" and "heard differently".
>That's the reason I pose questions or reference. As you said, green pen
>tweek was started as a April fool joke. But why should Plextor and Pioneer
>start another myth without any scientific data to back them up. Perhaps,
>they do not know about DBT or perhaps they do not care about DBT. Or maybe
>DBT is not a credible method that's recognised by the engineering authority.
>(Plextor claims they do have lab test to prove.)
>
I'm not aware of the details of the Plextor claim, so I won't comment
right now.
>>The reflected beam from the reading laser is *hundreds* of times more
>> intense than any possible reflection from the edge of the disc, and
>> *thousands* of times more intense than any possible extraneous
>> interfering source, and it only has to provide a zero/one
>> discrimination. It's probably the most rugged and reliable data source
>> ever invented.
>
>I am going experiment this by shining strong light on the CD, please tell me
>if I should take any special precaution during the experiment. Secondly,
>will the strong light cause any damage to the sensitive photo something in
>the laser mechanism.
>
This experiment carries in it all the failings that make green pens
work. You shine the light, you "hear" the difference. To perform this
experiment, you must put the CD player in another room, where somebody
else can shine the torch. He will turn the torch on and off in a
pattern that he will record as elapsed seconds from an agreed start
point. In the listening room, you must write down the times when you
consider you hear the effects of the torch being turned on and off. If
your on/off correlation is better than about 80%, then you have enough
evidence to move on to a real DBT experiment.
You won't do any damage, so go right ahead.
d
>> >p.s.
>> >Disclaimer:
>> >I assume no reponsibility for injuries sufferred by engineers and
>> >physicists while rolling on the floor laughing.
>>
>> A very wise legal precaution..............
>
>Thank you.
>
>> --
>>
>> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
>>
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Chelvam
>
> None of which can possibly have *any* effect on the datastream being
> read off the disc. How many times does this have to be explained? The
> reflected beam from the reading laser is *hundreds* of times more
> intense than any possible reflection from the edge of the disc, and
> *thousands* of times more intense than any possible extraneous
> interfering source, and it only has to provide a zero/one
> discrimination. It's probably the most rugged and reliable data source
> ever invented.
>
I have not got to this point yet but the more I look up for answers the more
it appears that DBT is NOT a definitive test to dismiss some unexplanable
claims in High End industry.
Here I am quoting some text found in the Optical Storage technology
Association. Among the salient ones are:-
"Does using lower CD-R recording speeds and lower capacity media produce
better sounding discs?
High speed CD-R writing often creates discs with low I3 and I11 signal
amplitudes (optical signals generated from the smallest and largest marks)
and 80 minute discs achieve their capacity by packing marks and lands more
tightly together. These result in reduced recording and playing margins and
sometimes lead to perceptible sound degradation, especially in older CD
audio players which may not employ equalization (signal boosting).
Consequently, many high speed recorder manufacturers recommend creating
audio discs at reduced writing speeds while some recorders even limit their
maximum speed to 24x when writing audio discs. In addition to slower
recording speeds, some manufacturers also suggest using 74 minute instead of
80 minute discs. Several of the latest recorders even offer special writing
modes which record audio discs with longer marks and lands than would
normally be the case, albeit at the expense of some capacity. For example,
an 80 minute disc written with longer marks and lands might only hold 74
minutes of audio and a 74 minute disc just 68 minutes of material."
see http://www.osta.org/technology/cdqa8.htm
and also,
"Several methods can be used to assess the quality of a written disc.
......Each method is a piece of quality testing puzzle...."
and
"when assessing disc quality keep in mind the huge number of variable
involved. these include such things as the discs with different types,
batches and manufacturers, recording software and hardware in their many
varieties and versions, diverse recording conditions encountered.......
Consequently, judgement should be made on a relative rather than absolute
basis."
and
' Remember that CD-R ..are complex engineering marvels so when coming to
choosing among them .." in another word they are not saying all discs are
equal (mine).
In short, Golden eared audiophile do possess something that no DBT is going
to explain them.
p.s.
This does not mean that I support green pen or $10000 cable.
Isaac Wingfield
Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 1 Jul 2004 22:42:55 GMT, "Chelvam" <che...@myjaring.net> wrote:
>
> >If you think some audiophiles are weirdo for believing green pens, think
> >again. Apparently black reduces jitter.
>
> No, it doesn't, but some weirdos have certainly *claimed* that it
> does..............
> >
> > "A black tray, to reduce the jitter and to increase the quality of the
> >burned CD". see
> >http://www.plextor.be/products/dvd_recorders/px-708a.asp?choice=PX-708A
> >
> >and
> >
> >http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/dvd-roundup_3.html
> >
> >
> >BTW, is it possible for black pen/marker to improve audio CD sound?
>
> No.
>
> >Physicists tell us that black absorbs almost all colours. It can absorb
> >stray red , green, white etc, etc light which may be still bouncing in the
> >CD.
>
> None of which can possibly have *any* effect on the datastream being
> read off the disc. How many times does this have to be explained? The
> reflected beam from the reading laser is *hundreds* of times more
> intense than any possible reflection from the edge of the disc, and
> *thousands* of times more intense than any possible extraneous
> interfering source, and it only has to provide a zero/one
> discrimination. It's probably the most rugged and reliable data source
> ever invented.
Not only that, but the laser in a CD player operates in the infrared.
You have no idea how any particular *visible* dye (black, green, or
otherwise) behaves in the IR. Many are transparent.
Isaac
Bob Olhsson
news:cc241...@news1.newsguy.com...
> BTW, is it possible for black pen/marker to improve audio CD sound?
It's possible for it to change it although the change could as easily be
attributed to a change in the mass distribution of the spinning disk as
anything having to do with light.
Some consider any subtitle change they hear to be an improvement while some
of us consider such changes as merely evidence of a broken DAC design!
--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com
Bob Marcus
>
>I have not got to this point yet but the more I look up for answers the
>more
>it appears that DBT is NOT a definitive test to dismiss some unexplanable
>claims in High End industry.
DBTs *are* the definitive test for *all* audible differences. High end, low
end, bird calls, car crashes, you name it. If you really want to know if
there's an audible difference between any two similar sounds, you have to do
some kind of a DBT.
Maybe they aren't. If OSTA has done DBTs that prove there are audible
differences between CD-Rs, then they are on solid ground. If they have not
done DBTs, however, they are only speculating about the audibility of these
differences. So have they done DBTs?
>
>In short, Golden eared audiophile do possess something that no DBT is going
>to explain them.
Yes. It's called their imagination.
bob
_________________________________________________________________
Get tips for maintaining your PC, notebook accessories and reviews in
Technology 101. http://special.msn.com/tech/technology101.armx
Steven Sullivan
> "Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:VLfFc.12652$MB3.11553@attbi_s04...
> > On 1 Jul 2004 22:42:55 GMT, "Chelvam" <che...@myjaring.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> snip...snip..
> >
> > None of which can possibly have *any* effect on the datastream being
> > read off the disc. How many times does this have to be explained?
> The reason why this question pops up often is because statements like yours
> indirectly imply many music lovers who heard the difference were individuals
> suffering from psychotic disorders .
Psychological bias towards hearing difference is not a sign of psychotic
disorder -- it's normal. How many times does *that* have to be explained?
--
-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth
chung
> "Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:VLfFc.12652$MB3.11553@attbi_s04...
>> On 1 Jul 2004 22:42:55 GMT, "Chelvam" <che...@myjaring.net> wrote:
>>
>>
> snip...snip..
>>
>> None of which can possibly have *any* effect on the datastream being
>> read off the disc. How many times does this have to be explained? The
>> reflected beam from the reading laser is *hundreds* of times more
>> intense than any possible reflection from the edge of the disc, and
>> *thousands* of times more intense than any possible extraneous
>> interfering source, and it only has to provide a zero/one
>> discrimination. It's probably the most rugged and reliable data source
>> ever invented.
>>
>
> I have not got to this point yet but the more I look up for answers the more
> it appears that DBT is NOT a definitive test to dismiss some unexplanable
> claims in High End industry.
Are you saying DBT's may not reveal *audible* differences? Please give
us some examples.
But do they sound the same? If not, don't you think that DBT's may be
the best tool to reveal audible differences?
>
> In short, Golden eared audiophile do possess something that no DBT is going
> to explain them.
Which is?
Seems like you are making a logical mistake here. You are assuming that
DBT's give negative results if there are differences in discs. That does
not follow at all. If there are truly audible differences, DBT is the
best tool to reveal those differences. DBT's do not explain why there
should be, or should not be, differences.
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:VLfFc.12652$MB3.11553@attbi_s04...
>> On 1 Jul 2004 22:42:55 GMT, "Chelvam" <che...@myjaring.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>snip...snip..
>>
>> None of which can possibly have *any* effect on the datastream being
>> read off the disc. How many times does this have to be explained?
>
>The reason why this question pops up often is because statements like yours
>indirectly imply many music lovers who heard the difference were individuals
>suffering from psychotic disorders . Not in so many words but that's the
>conclusion one can make. we failed the DBT, our claim could not be
>scientifically proven and therefor we must be hallucinating.
Your language is unnecessarily pejorative. No suggestion of psychosis
has ever been made, it's simply that people who have not even *tried*
a DBT absolutely refuse to believe that what they heard wasn't
actually real. In fact, it's very easy to dempnstrate that the ear is
*easily* fooled. Did you think that the 'objectivists' *always*
thought the same? In reality, most of us were 'true believers', and
suffered Damascene revealtions which made us realise that sighted
listening is simply not useful.
>Many do not care much what the engineers say
Shame rteally, since it's the engineers who *design* all the stuff
they listen to...............
>and they carry on with their
>hobby believing in snake oil but for a few, like myself , who sincerely
>believe that some claims by the peddlers of snake oil do not make sense to
>our limited knowledge of 'how stuff work" join forums like RAHE to
>understand 'why' or 'why not'.
And this is all regularly explained. Somre things like The Seismic
Sink really do work, other things like green pens really do not - and
all for good reasons.
>That's the reason I pose questions or reference. As you said, green pen
>tweek was started as a April fool joke. But why should Plextor and Pioneer
>start another myth without any scientific data to back them up.
Not true. Plextor and Pioneer are simply trying to sell product, but
back *any* transport with say a Benchmark DAC-1 and all such
'differences' disappear.
> Perhaps,
>they do not know about DBT or perhaps they do not care about DBT. Or maybe
>DBT is not a credible method that's recognised by the engineering authority.
>(Plextor claims they do have lab test to prove.)
Beware of engineering claims, if you do not understand the *exact*
conditions under which these claims are made.
>>The reflected beam from the reading laser is *hundreds* of times more
>> intense than any possible reflection from the edge of the disc, and
>> *thousands* of times more intense than any possible extraneous
>> interfering source, and it only has to provide a zero/one
>> discrimination. It's probably the most rugged and reliable data source
>> ever invented.
>
>I am going experiment this by shining strong light on the CD, please tell me
>if I should take any special precaution during the experiment. Secondly,
>will the strong light cause any damage to the sensitive photo something in
>the laser mechanism.
Nope, you can shine any light available to you (even including a laser
pointer) at the disc. You will cause no damage, and there will be no
difference to the output.
Jón Fairbairn
> Chelvam <che...@myjaring.net> wrote:
> > "Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:VLfFc.12652$MB3.11553@attbi_s04... [...]
> > > None of which can possibly have *any* effect on the datastream being
> > > read off the disc. How many times does this have to be explained?
>
> > The reason why this question pops up often is because
> > statements like yours indirectly imply many music lovers
> > who heard the difference were individuals suffering from
> > psychotic disorders .
>
> Psychological bias towards hearing difference is not a
> sign of psychotic disorder -- it's normal. How many times
> does *that* have to be explained?
I think what we need is a simple experiment that anyone can
perform that demonstrates a percieved difference that can
straightforwardly be shown not to be there.
I know of several visual illusions: a white square on a
black background to compare with a same-size black square on
white background -- measure the squares with a ruler to
check -- a straight line through another thicker one that
makes the first one seem staggered -- a straight edge
immediately demonstrates the error -- and so on. It's also
easy to demonstrate that one's apparent field of view is far
wider than the reality using a playing card[1]. But the
auditory illusions I know of aren't so handy: the tritone
paradox, Risset and Shepard tones don't have that same shock
of recognition and, as with most of the illusions I can find
on the net, focus on pitch and/or rhythm perception, which
aren't really issues for us. The background hum that one
suddenly notices when it stops only tells us that we block
out persistent noise.
Can anyone come up with something?
[1] shuffle a deck of cards, and then pull out a card behind
your back. Staring straight ahead (if you so much as glance
towards the card you'd better try again) hold the card at
arms length just out of view behind you with the face
towards you. Gradually sweep your arm around towards the
point directly in front of you. At what point can you
discern the rank of the card? At what point can you tell
what colour it is?
--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fa...@cl.cam.ac.uk
Norbert Hahn
wrote:
>High speed CD-R writing often creates discs with low I3 and I11 signal
>amplitudes (optical signals generated from the smallest and largest marks)
>and 80 minute discs achieve their capacity by packing marks and lands more
>tightly together.
Nobody will doubt that.
>These result in reduced recording and playing margins and
>sometimes lead to perceptible sound degradation, especially in older CD
>audio players which may not employ equalization (signal boosting).
Nothing new. However, do you know what kind of "perceptible sound
degradation" is meant here?
>... Several of the latest recorders even offer special writing
>modes which record audio discs with longer marks and lands than would
>normally be the case, albeit at the expense of some capacity. For example,
>an 80 minute disc written with longer marks and lands might only hold 74
>minutes of audio and a 74 minute disc just 68 minutes of material."
How many of these recorders are still manufactured?
The only one I know of that was sold in quantities was the Yamaha F1.
Any others?
Norbert
Chelvam
news:yOBFc.17388$MB3.3039@attbi_s04...
snip..snip..
> Not only that, but the laser in a CD player operates in the infrared.
> You have no idea how any particular *visible* dye (black, green, or
> otherwise) behaves in the IR. Many are transparent.
My undersanding is, visible light wavelenght is between 400nm to 700nm . CD
laser is something like 60nm. Why are you telling it is infrared?
Chelvam
news:cc6hc...@news2.newsguy.com...snip..snip..
> >
> This is fine, but you must understand that there is a huge difference
> between "heard the difference" and "heard differently".
I take it you mean to say that one must hear the difference under DBT
condition. Why should DBT be the only authoritative test? Yes, it should be
reliable when the difference is obvious but under subtle difference DBT
cannot give any useful answer. What intrigue me most about Oohashi's
hypersonic project was the inability of the subjects to tell the difference,
yet the brain scan shows we are aware of of the effect. You may also aware
that our ears inner part actually tuned to resonant upto 100Khz. however, we
don't hear them because the other part put a cap of roughly 20khz for
audible sound.
May I ask, have you ever approach this question the otherway round? Instead
of proving there's no difference, approach it by saying there is a
diiference. Sometimes, when one possesses vast knowledge of a subject they
tend not to look the otherway.
I was for most of part on RAHE hardly engage in technical arguments because
I do not have the necessary credential but when Mr. Sullivan or Mr.
Pinkerton said all CD-R should sound the same I knew there was somethng we
all missing. I know there is a difference.
Just get a copy of a CD-R from anyone who claim that is inferior. Listen to
the same CD alternating between original and CD-R for two weeks (No other
CDs).You will reach a point you will feel something is not right with one of
the CD. I am not telling you would able to tell the audible difference but
eventually you will choose one over the other. Later, you can ask for
someone to give you two copies of CD-R where one is superior and one is
inferior, and go through the same exercise.
> >That's the reason I pose questions or reference. As you said, green pen
> >tweek was started as a April fool joke. But why should Plextor and
Pioneer
> >start another myth without any scientific data to back them up. Perhaps,
> >they do not know about DBT or perhaps they do not care about DBT. Or
maybe
> >DBT is not a credible method that's recognised by the engineering
authority.
> >(Plextor claims they do have lab test to prove.)
> >
> I'm not aware of the details of the Plextor claim, so I won't comment
> right now.
>
There are a few interesting links I have posted and looking forward for
hearing an opinion from all of you guys.
Jón Fairbairn
Just as long as he doesn't work for TRW <URL:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-00e.html >
> and there will be no difference to the output.
--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fa...@cl.cam.ac.uk
Bob Marcus
>"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:VLfFc.12652$MB3.11553@attbi_s04...
> > On 1 Jul 2004 22:42:55 GMT, "Chelvam" <che...@myjaring.net> wrote:
> >
> >
>snip...snip..
> >
> > None of which can possibly have *any* effect on the datastream being
> > read off the disc. How many times does this have to be explained?
>
>The reason why this question pops up often is because statements like yours
>indirectly imply many music lovers who heard the difference were
>individuals
>suffering from psychotic disorders .
Only to people who want to deliberately misrepresent what he is saying.
>Not in so many words but that's the
>conclusion one can make. we failed the DBT, our claim could not be
>scientifically proven and therefor we must be hallucinating.
Get a dictionary, and look up these two words:
1) DElusion
2) ILlusion
See the difference? What we are talking about are ILlusions. Everybody is
subject to ILlusions. (Think optical illusions. Same thing.) You may rest
assured that it has nothing to do with the state of your mental health.
>
>Many do not care much what the engineers say
An odd stance for people whose hobby is absolutely dependent on the
creations of engineers, dontcha think?
>and they carry on with their
>hobby believing in snake oil but for a few, like myself , who sincerely
>believe that some claims by the peddlers of snake oil do not make sense to
>our limited knowledge of 'how stuff work" join forums like RAHE to
>understand 'why' or 'why not'.
>
>That's the reason I pose questions or reference. As you said, green pen
>tweek was started as a April fool joke. But why should Plextor and Pioneer
>start another myth without any scientific data to back them up.
To sell more product, perhaps? Just a thought. Remember, a corporate Web
site is an ADVERTISEMENT, nothing more. Short of outright misrepresentation
or fraud, they can say anything they want. And given that the burden of
proof would rest with the government, they can get away with a lot of
misrepresentation as well.
>Perhaps,
>they do not know about DBT or perhaps they do not care about DBT. Or maybe
>DBT is not a credible method that's recognised by the engineering
>authority.
>(Plextor claims they do have lab test to prove.)
But you can't find it, can you? Kinda makes ya wonder.
Look, maybe they have some lab test that shows that black interiors or
whatever result in fewer read errors than, say, one bathed in intense
full-spectrum light. But that doesn't mean it's audible. An awful lot of the
urban legends out there seem to be based on this fallacy--that if it's
measurable, then it must be audible. A strange position for those who argue
against measurements, but who needs consistency?
bob
_________________________________________________________________
Check out the latest news, polls and tools in the MSN 2004 Election Guide!
http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx
Chelvam
news:f1PFc.21765$XM6.1992@attbi_s53...
> Maybe they aren't. If OSTA has done DBTs that prove there are audible
> differences between CD-Rs, then they are on solid ground. If they have not
> done DBTs, however, they are only speculating about the audibility of
these
> differences. So have they done DBTs?
As I mentioned many times, maybe they are not recognising DBT as a reliable
test. I can't find the source and the engineer authority for DBT, please
provide me link if you have one.
> >In short, Golden eared audiophile do possess something that no DBT is
going
> >to explain them.
>
> Yes. It's called their imagination.
Or extra awareness of their senses.
Chelvam
.............................
...........................................................
> Your language is unnecessarily pejorative.
No Sir, never meant to be offensive, simply stating our failings.
snip..snip...
> Not true. Plextor and Pioneer are simply trying to sell product, but
> back *any* transport with say a Benchmark DAC-1 and all such
> 'differences' disappear.
Now I need a $1000 DAC to tell no difference. And on what basis are you
telling Plexstor and Pioneer are simply trying to sell product. You mean to
say all the C1 errors reduction is simply mistatement. It could be bordering
fraudalent statement if they got no basis for what they are claiming. Maybe,
you can counter them with why C1 errors is insignificant in audio quality.
...
> Nope, you can shine any light available to you (even including a laser
> pointer) at the disc. You will cause no damage, and there will be no
> difference to the output.
I have to back off, can't do it in absolute DBT condition. But I believe Mr.
Sukow does lend a hand in what I was saying. see other posts.
Jón Fairbairn
Yow! I'm not sure if that really counts as soft X-rays, but
it's UV at least.
> Why are you telling it is infrared?
Because the wavelength is more like 780nm.
--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fa...@cl.cam.ac.uk
Chelvam
news:x1PFc.22347$7t3.1511@attbi_s51...
> > snip...snip..
> >>
> >
> > I have not got to this point yet but the more I look up for answers the
more
> > it appears that DBT is NOT a definitive test to dismiss some
unexplanable
> > claims in High End industry.
>
> Are you saying DBT's may not reveal *audible* differences? Please give
> us some examples.
No, DBT is the most reliable test to tell "audible" differences. Differences
within human hearing range. But at the same time, if you play same number,
one with say slightly increased treble, you will still find many to fail the
DBT.
snip
snip..
>
> But do they sound the same? If not, don't you think that DBT's may be
> the best tool to reveal audible differences?
>
yes and no. DBT is only for audible sound. but music extend beyond that.
> >
> > In short, Golden eared audiophile do possess something that no DBT is
going
> > to explain them.
>
> Which is?
That's the answer we all, including Oohashi, is looking for.
> Seems like you are making a logical mistake here. You are assuming that
> DBT's give negative results if there are differences in discs. That does
> not follow at all. If there are truly audible differences, DBT is the
> best tool to reveal those differences. DBT's do not explain why there
> should be, or should not be, differences.
Agreed.
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:VLfFc.12652$MB3.11553@attbi_s04...
>> On 1 Jul 2004 22:42:55 GMT, "Chelvam" <che...@myjaring.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>snip...snip..
>>
>> None of which can possibly have *any* effect on the datastream being
>> read off the disc. How many times does this have to be explained? The
>> reflected beam from the reading laser is *hundreds* of times more
>> intense than any possible reflection from the edge of the disc, and
>> *thousands* of times more intense than any possible extraneous
>> interfering source, and it only has to provide a zero/one
>> discrimination. It's probably the most rugged and reliable data source
>> ever invented.
>>
>I have not got to this point yet but the more I look up for answers the more
>it appears that DBT is NOT a definitive test to dismiss some unexplanable
>claims in High End industry.
Sure it is, and nothing you write below has any relevance to this.
>Here I am quoting some text found in the Optical Storage technology
>Association. Among the salient ones are:-
>
>"Does using lower CD-R recording speeds and lower capacity media produce
>better sounding discs?
>
>High speed CD-R writing often creates discs with low I3 and I11 signal
>amplitudes (optical signals generated from the smallest and largest marks)
>and 80 minute discs achieve their capacity by packing marks and lands more
>tightly together. These result in reduced recording and playing margins and
>sometimes lead to perceptible sound degradation, especially in older CD
>audio players which may not employ equalization (signal boosting).
>Consequently, many high speed recorder manufacturers recommend creating
>audio discs at reduced writing speeds while some recorders even limit their
>maximum speed to 24x when writing audio discs. In addition to slower
>recording speeds, some manufacturers also suggest using 74 minute instead of
>80 minute discs. Several of the latest recorders even offer special writing
>modes which record audio discs with longer marks and lands than would
>normally be the case, albeit at the expense of some capacity. For example,
>an 80 minute disc written with longer marks and lands might only hold 74
>minutes of audio and a 74 minute disc just 68 minutes of material."
>
>see http://www.osta.org/technology/cdqa8.htm
>
>and also,
>
>"Several methods can be used to assess the quality of a written disc.
>......Each method is a piece of quality testing puzzle...."
Actually, the two classic methods are a simple file compare of
original and copy, and the block error rate.
>and
>
>"when assessing disc quality keep in mind the huge number of variable
>involved. these include such things as the discs with different types,
>batches and manufacturers, recording software and hardware in their many
>varieties and versions, diverse recording conditions encountered.......
>Consequently, judgement should be made on a relative rather than absolute
>basis."
>
>and
>
>' Remember that CD-R ..are complex engineering marvels so when coming to
>choosing among them .." in another word they are not saying all discs are
>equal (mine).
No one ever has suggested that CD-Rs are all identical - even when the
original and the copy give bit-identical results. However, there is a
very easy test called the block error rate (BLER) which can
distinguish among them. A few of the better CD players can display the
BLER, and it's quick and simple to sort out the good, the bad and the
ugly for the writer and playback gear that you use, so that you can
very quickly find the best disc and the best writing rate for your own
collection of equipment. Note also that CD-Rs should not be left
exposed to sunlight for long periods, and that they should be
re-copied every ten years or so to ensure reliable archiving. That's
what we do at the IT section of the Bank where I work, where we burn
hundreds of CD-Rs every day.
>In short, Golden eared audiophile do possess something that no DBT is going
>to explain them.
Excuse me? The above are all *technical* points, and have nothing
whatever to do with the *audibility* of any problems. The
level-matched DBT is still the *only* reliable method of determining
whether a *real* audible difference exists - no matter how acute the
hearing of the listener. The only difference is that an experienced
listener with truly acute hearing will be able to hear things in a DBT
that you or I may not. This does not affect the validity of the test,
just the scatter of results for a wide range of listeners.
The type of 'golden eared audiophile' to whom you refer simply has a
vivid imagination, which is an entirely different matter! :-)
Chelvam
news:muOFc.19868$MB3.10836@attbi_s04...
snip...snip..
> It's possible for it to change it although the change could as easily be
> attributed to a change in the mass distribution of the spinning disk as
> anything having to do with light.
I wasn't prepared for this one. How much mass can a small layer of ink add?
Average CD is about 20gm to 30gm. Most of the so called audiophile recording
is much thicker than others.
It did cross my mind that if there was some way to balance the disc it would
probably improve the sound. I did use a small sticker at various spots on a
disc but unfortunately did not get any significant results under A/B tests
and dropped the idea. (got this idea while watching my mechanic balance the
car tyres - can you believe 5gm can make a difference?!)
However, I did another foolish thing by sticking a layer of some synthetic
materials on discs. I did hear a difference in the upper region ( bad
effect) but somehow unable to do A/B because when I peel them off the
reflective layer get ripped off. So I am stuck with several SACD with edge
peeling. Hopefully, the are the CD layer. In terms of price index (can't
remember the exact economic term)it cost about $100 per disc in this part of
region.
> Some consider any subtitle change they hear to be an improvement while
some
> of us consider such changes as merely evidence of a broken DAC design!
That's a rather convenient way to dismiss what cannot be explained.
Stewart Pinkerton
>"Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
>news:cc6hc...@news2.newsguy.com...
>> On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:34:19 GMT, "Chelvam" <che...@myjaring.net>
>> wrote:
>snip..snip..
>> >
>> This is fine, but you must understand that there is a huge difference
>> between "heard the difference" and "heard differently".
>
>I take it you mean to say that one must hear the difference under DBT
>condition. Why should DBT be the only authoritative test? Yes, it should be
>reliable when the difference is obvious but under subtle difference DBT
>cannot give any useful answer.
Actually, you have that completely the wrong way round. When the
difference is *gross*, e.g. with loudspeakers, then DBTs are a waste
of time, as they'll give 100% results every time. OTOH, when the
difference is subtle, then a DBT is *essential* to determine if any
*real* sonic difference exists.
>What intrigue me most about Oohashi's
>hypersonic project was the inability of the subjects to tell the difference,
>yet the brain scan shows we are aware of of the effect. You may also aware
>that our ears inner part actually tuned to resonant upto 100Khz. however, we
>don't hear them because the other part put a cap of roughly 20khz for
>audible sound.
IOW, the ear as a system is limited to 20kHz or thereabouts.
>May I ask, have you ever approach this question the otherway round? Instead
>of proving there's no difference, approach it by saying there is a
>diiference. Sometimes, when one possesses vast knowledge of a subject they
>tend not to look the otherway.
No need for either approach - just do the DBT, check the results, then
you will *know* if there really is an audible difference. It doesn't
matter what you thought *before* the test, as several very vocal
'golden ears' have discovered.
>I was for most of part on RAHE hardly engage in technical arguments because
>I do not have the necessary credential but when Mr. Sullivan or Mr.
>Pinkerton said all CD-R should sound the same I knew there was somethng we
>all missing. I know there is a difference.
Excuse me? I have never said any such thing, nor has anyone else to my
knowledge. BTW, how do *you* know that there *is* a difference?
>Just get a copy of a CD-R from anyone who claim that is inferior. Listen to
>the same CD alternating between original and CD-R for two weeks (No other
>CDs).You will reach a point you will feel something is not right with one of
>the CD. I am not telling you would able to tell the audible difference but
>eventually you will choose one over the other. Later, you can ask for
>someone to give you two copies of CD-R where one is superior and one is
>inferior, and go through the same exercise.
Actually, it's well known that on some players, the CD-R will sound
*superior* to the original - and for very good engineering reasons.
Stewart Pinkerton
Wrong - the standard CD reading laser is 780nm. 60nm would be deep
ultraviolet, verging on X-ray! OK, it was probably a typo for 600nm,
but one can't resist a good feed line.................
Dick Pierce
>news:VLfFc.12652$MB3.11553@attbi_s04...
>> On 1 Jul 2004 22:42:55 GMT, "Chelvam" <che...@myjaring.net> wrote:
>>
>> snip...snip..
>>
>> None of which can possibly have *any* effect on the datastream being
>> read off the disc. How many times does this have to be explained?
>
>yours indirectly imply many music lovers who heard the difference were
>individuals suffering from psychotic disorders.
Why do you choose to be so outright insulting? NO ONE, except you,
has EVER claimed that anyone is suffering from "psycotic disorders."
>Not in so many words but that's the conclusion one can make.
No, that's the conclusion YOU made, and how you arrived at such a
conclusion is a piece of illogical that I don't comprehend.
>failed the DBT, our claim could not be scientifically proven and
>therefor we must be hallucinating.
If that's the way YOU feel about it, then you're certainly entitled to
youy conclusion, however ill-founded and misguided it is. It is,
however, a conclusion you can claim sole ownership and authorship of.
Are you at all familiar with the work of Dianna Deutch? She has spent
a considerable number of years studying a field called "auditory
illusions." Such illusions are similar in concept to optical illusions
in that the senses are presented with one very well characterized
syimuli yet the brain interprets it as something entirely different. As
one example, two different series of alternating pitch tones are
presented to listeners, one in each ear. MOST listeners will hear not
alternating pitches, but a series of ascending and descending tones,
with pitches heard in the ear where no such pitch is being played. For
example,
lay the following:
Right ear c' D A F F A D c'
Left ear C B E G G E B C
And what the vast majority of subject hear is:
Right ear c' B A G G A B c'
Left ear C D E F F E D C
These people, according to your conlusion, are suffering from a psycotic
disorder.
Where does that make snese?
Another example: listen to the Back Sonata #6 for solo violin, the
Ciaccona. Hear VERY CLEARLY the four quite independent voices starting
at bar 10. Then reconcile that with the fact that it is physically
impossible to play 4 independent voices on a violin
The people who hear this, according to you conclusion, are suffering
from a psoctic disorder. And Johann Sebastian Bach, what is HE suffering
from?
Where does this make sense?
Take a tone of some fixed frequency, listen to it. Now make it louder.
Depending upon frequency, almost everyone who hears this will declare
that the pitch has changed.
Almost everyone, according to YOUR conclusion, is suffering from a
psychotic disorder.
Where does this make sense?
Find yourself a copy of the John R. Pierce's book, The Science of
Musical Sound. They used to come with a demonstration record of a number
of auditory illusions, including the ability to make sounds quite
clearly and unabiguously sound like they are coming from behind you,
even though they are being played over ordinary stereo speakers that are
in front of you.
People who hear this, according to your conclusion, are suffering from
psycotic disorders.
And, were you to hear these and many other such illusions, then, by your
own conclusion, YOU ARE SUFFERING FROM A PSYCOTIC DISORDER!
Are you?
Well, ARE you?
Either your conclusion is right, and you ARE suffering from a psycotic
disorder, or, if you believe you are not suffering from a psycotic
disorder when you hear these clear and obvious illusions, when your ear
and brain CLEARLY tell to you're hearing things which physically ARE NOT
PRESENT, then your conclusion must be wrong.
Either everybody on the planet is suffering from psycotic disorders, or
eveybody on the planet, due to the makeup ofn their ear/brain system, is
capable of hearing things that aren't there.
Which is it, do you think?
When a magician pulls off a great trick, is it an illusion, or a
hallucination?
Which is it?
When you see an optical illusion, is it an illusion or a hallucination?
Which is it?
Well?
Stewart Pinkerton
>"Bob Marcus" <nab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:f1PFc.21765$XM6.1992@attbi_s53...
>
>> Maybe they aren't. If OSTA has done DBTs that prove there are audible
>> differences between CD-Rs, then they are on solid ground. If they have not
>> done DBTs, however, they are only speculating about the audibility of these
>> differences. So have they done DBTs?
>
>As I mentioned many times, maybe they are not recognising DBT as a reliable
>test. I can't find the source and the engineer authority for DBT, please
>provide me link if you have one.
This engineer has reported the reliability of DBT on numerous
occasions. Please show your authority for the reliability,
repeatability and falsifiability of any sighted test.
>> >In short, Golden eared audiophile do possess something that no DBT is going
>> >to explain them.
>>
>> Yes. It's called their imagination.
>
>Or extra awareness of their senses.
Yes indeed, but somehow this always falls apart when they have to rely
on just the one sense - hearing.......................
Stewart Pinkerton
>"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:d2PFc.22349$7t3.17257@attbi_s51...
>
>.............................
>...........................................................
>> Your language is unnecessarily pejorative.
>
>No Sir, never meant to be offensive, simply stating our failings.
>
>snip..snip...
>
>> Not true. Plextor and Pioneer are simply trying to sell product, but
>> back *any* transport with say a Benchmark DAC-1 and all such
>> 'differences' disappear.
>
>Now I need a $1000 DAC to tell no difference.
I'm simply pointing out that the Benchmark DAC-1 (at less than a tenth
of what Mark Levinson will charge you) makes a mockery of such claims.
>And on what basis are you
>telling Plexstor and Pioneer are simply trying to sell product.
They are in business, and corporate websites are *advertisements*, not
sources of engineering information.
> You mean to
>say all the C1 errors reduction is simply mistatement. It could be bordering
>fraudalent statement if they got no basis for what they are claiming. Maybe,
>you can counter them with why C1 errors is insignificant in audio quality.
You need to look at the details of the claims, and how they relate to
real-world situations. As to audibility, we come back to DBTs.
Bob Marcus
>"Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
>news:cc6hc...@news2.newsguy.com...
> > On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:34:19 GMT, "Chelvam" <che...@myjaring.net>
> > wrote:
>snip..snip..
> > >
> > This is fine, but you must understand that there is a huge difference
> > between "heard the difference" and "heard differently".
>
>I take it you mean to say that one must hear the difference under DBT
>condition. Why should DBT be the only authoritative test?
Because the scientists who study human hearing--and are therefore the only
ones in any position to declare a listening test "authoritative"--have found
that no other kind of listening test will work.
>Yes, it should be
>reliable when the difference is obvious but under subtle difference DBT
>cannot give any useful answer.
Any of those scientists I mentioned above can tell you that this just is not
so. DBTs have been found to be sensitive pretty close to the
biological/physical limits of the ear's ability to respond to sensation. If
there's something out there that's too sensitive for DBT, no one's ever
found it. What they've found is a lot of "differences" that might very well
be imagined. Until you take your imagination out of the equation, you don't
have an authoritative test.
>What intrigue me most about Oohashi's
>hypersonic project was the inability of the subjects to tell the
>difference,
>yet the brain scan shows we are aware of of the effect.
Ah, Oohashi. Did you happen to notice that *all* of the tests he did were
DBTs? BTW, that's a one-time experiment, using equipment not available to
anyone else in the world (though you can buy it if you want to replicate his
experiment, which may partially explain why it hasn't been replicated yet).
Oohashi himself has admitted that he's not been able to replicate it using
any other equipment.
>You may also aware
>that our ears inner part actually tuned to resonant upto 100Khz. however,
>we
>don't hear them because the other part put a cap of roughly 20khz for
>audible sound.
>
>May I ask, have you ever approach this question the otherway round? Instead
>of proving there's no difference, approach it by saying there is a
>diiference. Sometimes, when one possesses vast knowledge of a subject they
>tend not to look the otherway.
What, you think only skeptics fail to hear differences in DBTs? Try one,
then. See how you do.
>
>I was for most of part on RAHE hardly engage in technical arguments because
>I do not have the necessary credential but when Mr. Sullivan or Mr.
>Pinkerton said all CD-R should sound the same I knew there was somethng we
>all missing. I know there is a difference.
Not if you haven't done an "authoritative" test, you don't. You're only
speculating.
>
>Just get a copy of a CD-R from anyone who claim that is inferior. Listen to
>the same CD alternating between original and CD-R for two weeks (No other
>CDs).You will reach a point you will feel something is not right with one
>of
>the CD. I am not telling you would able to tell the audible difference but
>eventually you will choose one over the other. Later, you can ask for
>someone to give you two copies of CD-R where one is superior and one is
>inferior, and go through the same exercise.
This is an excellent example of a meaningless test.
bob
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Life Events gives you the tips and tools to handle the turning points in
your life. http://lifeevents.msn.com
Glenn Booth
In message <cc964...@news3.newsguy.com>, Chelvam
<che...@myjaring.net> writes
As an example, The Philips CQL10 laser has a wavelength of 790 nm in
air. That's in the near infra red, and out of the visible spectrum.
60nm would make put it in the extreme ultra-violet category, which is
not what you want for reading CDs!
--
Regards,
Glenn Booth
Bob Marcus
>
>No, DBT is the most reliable test to tell "audible" differences.
>Differences
>within human hearing range.
Exactly!
>But at the same time, if you play same number,
>one with say slightly increased treble, you will still find many to fail
>the
>DBT.
Which means that this difference is probably inaudible for those people.
Your use of the word "many" implies that there are others who do not fail
the DBT. If so, then the difference is audible for them. So what's your
point?
bob
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Stewart Pinkerton
<jon.fa...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@dircon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:34:19 GMT, "Chelvam" <che...@myjaring.net>
>> wrote:
>>> I am going experiment this by shining strong light on the
>>> CD, please tell me if I should take any special
>>> precaution during the experiment. Secondly, will the
>>> strong light cause any damage to the sensitive photo
>>> something in the laser mechanism.
>>
>> Nope, you can shine any light available to you (even
>> including a laser pointer) at the disc. You will cause no
>> damage,
>
> Just as long as he doesn't work for TRW <URL:
> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-00e.html >
No problem - he won't be reporting the results! :-)
TChelvam
> "Chelvam" <che...@myjaring.net> writes:
>
snip..snip..
> > My undersanding is, visible light wavelenght is between 400nm to 700nm . CD
> > laser is something like 60nm.
> Yow! I'm not sure if that really counts as soft X-rays, but
> it's UV at least.
I meant to say 650nm, either way I am wrong.
out...@city-net.com
perform that demonstrates a percieved difference that can
straightforwardly be shown not to be there.
"
Here is one:
http://www.parmly.luc.edu/parmly/franssen.html
on a page of similar effects:
http://www.parmly.luc.edu/parmly/audio_demos.html
and with sound files to duplicate the effects. Read the first link above,
it will destroy forever the "illusion" that hearing is believing and that
our ears are the best device by which to make auditory conclusions.
Dick Pierce
>> Not only that, but the laser in a CD player operates in the
>>infrared. You have no idea how any particular *visible* dye
>>(black, green, or otherwise) behaves in the IR. Many are
>>transparent.
>to 700nm.
Yes, your understanding is fairly correct in this respect.
>CD laser is something like 60nm.
Really?
REALLY?
The CD laser is operating in the far, FAR ultraviolet? Please,
if you have solid state lasers that operat at that wavelength,
please let me by a major share in your company, because YOU'RE
going to make a bazillion dollars with such a fantastic device,
and I want a piece of THAT action.
Either that, or your understanding of the CD laser wavelngth is
off. By more than a factor of 10.
Let's see, from Pohlmann, we are able to read:
"The laser beam originates from a laser diode. A CD pickup
uses a semiconductor laser with approximately a 0.5-mW
optical output irradiating a coherent A1GaAs beam with a
780-nm wavelength."
Principles of Digital Audio, Ch. 9, "The Compact Disc:
Player Optical Design," pg 274, McGraw Hill 1995
>Why are you telling it is infrared?
Uhm, because 780 nm is in the infrared, maybe?
Where did you come up with the 60 nm figure? That source
should be corrected, as it is certainly quite incorrect.
--
+--------------------------------+
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+
Bob Marcus
>"Bob Marcus" <nab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:f1PFc.21765$XM6.1992@attbi_s53...
>
> > Maybe they aren't. If OSTA has done DBTs that prove there are audible
> > differences between CD-Rs, then they are on solid ground. If they have
>not
> > done DBTs, however, they are only speculating about the audibility of
>these
> > differences. So have they done DBTs?
>
>As I mentioned many times, maybe they are not recognising DBT as a reliable
>test.
Then they aren't really scientists. No scientist in the field disputes the
absolute necessity of DBTs for listening tests.
>I can't find the source and the engineer authority for DBT, please
>provide me link if you have one.
The science of hearing perception is called psychoacoustics. Googling that
term should give you plenty to read, although it might be more productive to
seek out a textbook on the subject. You'll do better with an orderly
presentation on the topic than with random search results.
>
> > >In short, Golden eared audiophile do possess something that no DBT is
>going
> > >to explain them.
> >
> > Yes. It's called their imagination.
>
>Or extra awareness of their senses.
They wish. But that's all it is--a wish.
bob
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
chung
> "chung" <chun...@covad.net> wrote in message
> news:x1PFc.22347$7t3.1511@attbi_s51...
>
>> > snip...snip..
>> >>
>> >
>> > I have not got to this point yet but the more I look up for answers the
> more
>> > it appears that DBT is NOT a definitive test to dismiss some
> unexplanable
>> > claims in High End industry.
>>
>> Are you saying DBT's may not reveal *audible* differences? Please give
>> us some examples.
>
> No, DBT is the most reliable test to tell "audible" differences. Differences
> within human hearing range.
Well, so what exactly is your complaint about DBT's?
> But at the same time, if you play same number,
> one with say slightly increased treble, you will still find many to fail the
> DBT.
First of all, can you back up that claim with some real examples?
Secondly, a slightly increased treble may simply be inaudible, depending
on how you define "slightly increased". No one ever says that DBT's are
as sensitive as measuring equipment. Third, are you saying that the
"slightly increased" treble can be reliably detected without the use of DBT?
>
> snip
>
> snip..
>>
>> But do they sound the same? If not, don't you think that DBT's may be
>> the best tool to reveal audible differences?
>>
> yes and no. DBT is only for audible sound. but music extend beyond that.
You are clearly conflicting yourself. Do you care about the part of
music that is inaudible? As regarding CD's, we know that there is no
information beyond 20 KHz captured.
>
>> >
>> > In short, Golden eared audiophile do possess something that no DBT is
> going
>> > to explain them.
>>
>
>> Which is?
>
> That's the answer we all, including Oohashi, is looking for.
OK, so you don't really have an answer. You are just looking for one.
But what is the question you want to answer? You may want to do a google
on Oohashi's article in this newsgroup.
>
>> Seems like you are making a logical mistake here. You are assuming that
>> DBT's give negative results if there are differences in discs. That does
>> not follow at all. If there are truly audible differences, DBT is the
>> best tool to reveal those differences. DBT's do not explain why there
>> should be, or should not be, differences.
>
> Agreed.
OK, so what exactly is your complaint about DBT's?
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>"Bob Olhsson" <o...@hyperback.com> wrote in message
>news:muOFc.19868$MB3.10836@attbi_s04...
>
>snip...snip..
>
>> It's possible for it to change it although the change could as easily be
>> attributed to a change in the mass distribution of the spinning disk as
>> anything having to do with light.
>
>I wasn't prepared for this one. How much mass can a small layer of ink add?
Less than 10 milligrams, but 'greens' always bring this up as a
possible cause of audible differences. Of course, no one has ever
actually been able to demonstrate that any such differences actually
exist......................
>Average CD is about 20gm to 30gm. Most of the so called audiophile recording
>is much thicker than others.
Utter rubbish! All CDs are the same nominal thickness, whether
standard, 'audiophile', or even gold-plated. Indeed, the Red Book
closely controls disc thickness.
>It did cross my mind that if there was some way to balance the disc it would
>probably improve the sound. I did use a small sticker at various spots on a
>disc but unfortunately did not get any significant results under A/B tests
>and dropped the idea. (got this idea while watching my mechanic balance the
>car tyres - can you believe 5gm can make a difference?!)
>
>However, I did another foolish thing by sticking a layer of some synthetic
>materials on discs. I did hear a difference in the upper region ( bad
>effect)
Oh really? Under DBT conditions?
>but somehow unable to do A/B because when I peel them off the
>reflective layer get ripped off.
The proper way to do this is with two copies of the disc.
> So I am stuck with several SACD with edge
>peeling. Hopefully, the are the CD layer. In terms of price index (can't
>remember the exact economic term)it cost about $100 per disc in this part of
>region.
>
>> Some consider any subtitle change they hear to be an improvement while some
>> of us consider such changes as merely evidence of a broken DAC design!
>
>That's a rather convenient way to dismiss what cannot be explained.
Not at all, it's a simple truth - a good DAC (e.g. thre Benchmark
DAC-1) is *not* sensitive to transport variations - so long as all the
bits come out. You keep trying to come up with mysterious reasons for
audible differences - without actually proving that there *are* any
audible differences.
Chelvam
snip...snip..
>
> Get a dictionary, and look up these two words:
>
> 1) DElusion
> 2) ILlusion
> See the difference? What we are talking about are ILlusions. Everybody is
> subject to ILlusions.
Yes, like David copperfield making the Statue of Liberty
dissappear.-Illusion.
But when only me alone can see Mr Shakti and Mr Green making the Statue
dissappears, that's delusion. correct?
Chelvam
news:ad5Gc.25776$IQ4.10743@attbi_s02...
>
>
And your point is? Without being too emotional consider other facts that we
have discussed so far. why are there still many who believe in tweaks,
different type CD-R for recording and etc, etc, despite overwhelming proof
that none exist under DBT? What do you call these people?
Chelvam
news:cc96h...@news3.newsguy.com...
> To sell more product, perhaps? Just a thought. Remember, a corporate Web
> site is an ADVERTISEMENT, nothing more. Short of outright
misrepresentation
> or fraud, they can say anything they want. And given that the burden of
> proof would rest with the government, they can get away with a lot of
> misrepresentation as well.
>
I think now is time to take the bull by its horn. How about some engineers
write to them to substantiate their claim? If only I had the expertise I
would do so. Hope Mr. Atkinson is reading this, maybe he can publish the
exchange in Stereophile Magazine.
Steven Sullivan
> "Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
> news:cc6hc...@news2.newsguy.com...
> > >
> > This is fine, but you must understand that there is a huge difference
> > between "heard the difference" and "heard differently".
> I take it you mean to say that one must hear the difference under DBT
> condition. Why should DBT be the only authoritative test? Yes, it should be
> reliable when the difference is obvious but under subtle difference DBT
> cannot give any useful answer.
Odd, then, that it hould be the test of choice for studies in perceptual
psychology, not to mention more muundne things like product testing
(including audio products).
Actually, *sighted* tests are the ones taht cannot give a
'useful' answer when subtle differences are possible . They are
simply too prone to bias.
> What intrigue me most about Oohashi's
> hypersonic project was the inability of the subjects to tell the difference,
> yet the brain scan shows we are aware of of the effect.
Similarly, you are receiving far more visual input than you actually
*perceive*. But if you can't 'tell the difference' in any
conscious fashion, then ...you *can't tell the difference*.
> May I ask, have you ever approach this question the otherway round? Instead
> of proving there's no difference, approach it by saying there is a
> diiference.
Actually a DBT coupled with good measurements, is the best way to 'prove a
difference'. Do you understand the statistical nature of DBT results?
> I was for most of part on RAHE hardly engage in technical arguments because
> I do not have the necessary credential but when Mr. Sullivan or Mr.
> Pinkerton said all CD-R should sound the same I knew there was somethng we
> all missing. I know there is a difference.
No, you *believe* there is a difference. And there may be. But the difference
might not be due to what you think causes it.
> Just get a copy of a CD-R from anyone who claim that is inferior. Listen to
> the same CD alternating between original and CD-R for two weeks (No other
> CDs).You will reach a point you will feel something is not right with one of
> the CD.
Or you might not. In any case, the effect is not necessarily due to
anyting *other than* psychological factors.
> I am not telling you would able to tell the audible difference but
> eventually you will choose one over the other.
Sighted? Yes, it's quite llikely you will. It may not be due to
any real audible difference, though.
> Later, you can ask for
> someone to give you two copies of CD-R where one is superior and one is
> inferior, and go through the same exercise.
Sir, you could do the same test, but only *leading the lilstener to believe
that there were two different CDRs*. In fact you could be using
the same CDR. And guess waht* there's a good chance you'd *still* form a
preference for 'one or the other' -- even though they are the same CDR.
Given that sort of well-documented psychological effect, *how* can you
say that simply listening, sighted, is sufficient to determine the
truth of the matter?
--
-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth
jjn...@sonic.net
>>
>>
Part of the market churning structure.
Dick Pierce
>"Dick Pierce" <dpi...@cartchunk.org> wrote in message
>news:ad5Gc.25776$IQ4.10743@attbi_s02...
>>
>>
>>
>And your point is?
Don't you think it's rather unfair that you completely fail to
provide a single quote of what I said, and then ask what my point
is? What words of mine are you talking about?
>Without being too emotional consider other facts that we
>have discussed so far. why are there still many who believe
>in tweaks, different type CD-R for recording and etc, etc,
>despite overwhelming proof that none exist under DBT?
Why are you asking me? I have no idea! Don't you think it's a
wee bit unfair that you demand that I speak for their motivations?
Why are there still many who believe fervently that the earth is
flat? Don't ask me!
Why did the President of South Africa make declarations about HIV
that were contrary to known facts? Don't ask me!
Why do more than 70% of Americans believe that Iragis had direct
involvement in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon in 2001? Don't ask me!
Why are there people who believe putting a dime on the corner of
their loudspeakers "vastly" improves the sound? Don't ask me!
>What do you call these people?
I call them people.
Unlike others around here who prefer to engage in name-calling,
erect strawman arguments and profer ad hominem attacks, I call
them people. Unlike these others, I don't call them "subjectivists"
or "objectivists," I don't declare that the objectivists only
measure, never listen, state as a generalization that they say all
amplifiers and wires and CDs sound identical. I don't make broad,
unfounded statements boardering on the pejorative about people having
"psycotic disorders" and suffering from "hallucinations," I don't
substitute "delusion" for "illusion."
I DO know, because I have observed it, that perfectly reasonable,
healthy, honest and well-intentioned people have claimed that
audible differences exist when they have been presented with
absolutely IDENTICAL signals, and the ONLY thing they were aware
of ahead of time was that they were going to be listening to two
versions of the same thing. I have seen reasonable, healthy, honest
and well intentioned people hear two signals that differed ONLY
in level by about 0.5 dB declare emphatically that there were
tremendous differences in "bass slam" or "depth" or any number of
things, when the ONLY difference was a slight difference in
amplitude. And I am sure you are aware of the fact that as long ago
as the early 18th century, Jean Phillip Rameau described and
quantified the ability of the ear, when presented with but two notes
(such as two that are a fifth apart, to hear, unmistakably a third,
an octave lower than the lower of the two notes.
Is Jean Phillip Rameau claiming that people are having "psycotic
disorders" and are hearing "hallucinations?" Are the number of organ
builders who exploit this well known property of human hearing
preying upon hapless psycotics? Are barber shop quartets, who use
this known property, searching the country far and wide simply to
torment those with "psycotic disorders" and deliberately triggering
their "hallucinations" for their own macabre amusement?
What do I call these reasonable, healthy, honest, well-intentioned
people who regularily and reliably can hear differences in cases
no difference exists, where they behave like the VAST majority of
humans who are programmed for over-detection, where many years ago,
people who jumped because they THOUGHT they heard something that
wasn't there had a much higher survival rate than those that didn't
jump enough, people who universally can hear any number of well-
documented auditory illusions and KEEP hearing them, even when they
are told they are hearing an illusion?
I call them "human beings."
I DON'T call them psycotic or hallucinatory. That not only be wrong,
it would be insulting, wouldn't it?
What do YOU call them? Someone here accused them of suffering from
"psycotic disorders" and "hallucinations." I'm hoping that person
did so from a position of ignorance of the facts and subleties of
human auditory perception, such as the susceptibility to illusions
and overdetection and a whole host of other properties that the
practitioners and researchers in human auditory perception have
known well for decades and, indeed, centuries.
Steven Sullivan
> "Chelvam" <che...@myjaring.net> wrote in message
> news:cc241...@news1.newsguy.com...
> > BTW, is it possible for black pen/marker to improve audio CD sound?
> It's possible for it to change it although the change could as easily be
> attributed to a change in the mass distribution of the spinning disk as
> anything having to do with light.
I suppose it could, since neither explanation holds much water.
How much ink would you have to pile on a CD for the mass to change
appreciably enough to affect audio output (and wouldn't it just cause
massive pop/click/read failure-type errors at that point?)
> Some consider any subtitle change they hear to be an improvement while some
> of us consider such changes as merely evidence of a broken DAC design!
Do any of you check your perception via bias-controlled comparison?
Steven Sullivan
> >
> >
Why are there still many people who believe in lucky numbers,
and play the lottery regualrly on that basis, despite the fact
that the field of probabiliity and statistics has existed for
several hundred years now, and has explained the basis of 'lucky
numbers' for almost that long?
Norman Schwartz
> I call them people.
I call them people trying to justify cluttering their mailboxes with copies
of certain Audio Magazines. (RIP Julian Hirsch.)
Bob Marcus
>And your point is? Without being too emotional consider other facts that we
>have discussed so far. why are there still many who believe in tweaks,
>different type CD-R for recording and etc, etc, despite overwhelming proof
>that none exist under DBT? What do you call these people?
Credulous.
Illusions are tough things to overcome. When you try a tweak, and it seems
to work, it isn't easy to recognize that you've been fooled. After all, what
did your ears just tell you?
Add to that the technological ignorance of most consumers--which makes it
easy for proponents of this snake oil to concoct plausible-sounding
justifications for their products--and you've got an urban myth.
Another thing to remember is that somebody (actually, a lot of somebodies)
has an economic incentive to convince you that these tweaks work. But nobody
really has an economic incentive to convince you that they don't. So, for
the average consumer (i.e., not the ones who read this newsgroup), it's a
lot easier to hear the "pro" side than the "anti" side.
And then there's ego. Let's face it, if you think of yourself as a "golden
ear," your reputation among your audiophile friends is not enhanced by
admitting that there's something you *can't* hear.
That's why so many people buy into this stuff.
bob
_________________________________________________________________
Get fast, reliable Internet access with MSN 9 Dial-up – now 2 months FREE!
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/
Bob Marcus
>"Bob Marcus" <nab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:cc96h...@news3.newsguy.com...
>
>snip...snip..
>
> >
> > Get a dictionary, and look up these two words:
> >
> > 1) DElusion
> > 2) ILlusion
>
> > See the difference? What we are talking about are ILlusions. Everybody
>is
> > subject to ILlusions.
>
>Yes, like David copperfield making the Statue of Liberty
>dissappear.-Illusion.
>
>But when only me alone can see Mr Shakti and Mr Green making the Statue
>dissappears, that's delusion. correct?
Except you're not the only one--not by a long shot. The first time I heard a
CD treated with the green pen, it sounded better to me. That was the
beginning of my education in how easy it is for our ears to trick us.
bob
_________________________________________________________________
Check out the latest news, polls and tools in the MSN 2004 Election Guide!
http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx
chung
No. That's still illusion. Now, when someone keeps ignoring the effects
of perception bias... :)
Jón Fairbairn
I think to answer that one would have to have a deep
understanding of the psychology of satisfaction, of the
impact of an increasingly technological society on religious
belief and the reactions of people faced with to them
incomprehensible but powerful scientific knowledge, among
other factors.
Whatever the reason for the belief, the number of people who
believe such things has no bearing on whether or not they
are true. (I think Richard Feynman said that more
eloquently, but I can't remember where).
> What do you call these people?
Normal.
The salt of the earth.
Suckers.
Delete as applicable.
--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fa...@cl.cam.ac.uk
http://www.chaos.org.uk/~jf/Stuff-I-dont-want.html (updated 2004-03-03)
TChelvam
All I wanted to know if Plextor's claim is tenable. Mr. Pinkerton
said, echoing my word ".No, it doesn't, but some weirdos have
certainly *claimed* that it does..............".,
And he went on , I quote "None of which can possibly have *any* effect
on the datastream being read off the disc. How many times does this
have to be explained? The reflected beam from the reading laser is
*hundreds* of times more intense than any possible reflection from the
edge of the disc, and *thousands* of times more intense than any
possible extraneous interfering source, and it only has to provide a
zero/one discrimination. It's probably the most rugged and reliable
data source ever invented."
Was Mr.Pinkerton correct, or was his statement need to be qualified?
Unfortunately, the other knowledgeable persons kept quite. Some did
email me privately giving useful explanation why and why not. Some
attacked me on other issues but not the issue of black colour and
jitter.
Mr. Pinkerton then went on "Can we just kill this nonsense once and
for all? CD players read discs using a light source which is
*thousands* of times more intense than any possible external light
source - even if you shone a car headlight directly at the disc, or
left it in direct sunlight, you would not affect the datastream. This
would be the case for white, red, blue, green or even infrared light."
He did not explain why but he wanted this "nonsense" to be stopped. In
this context I provided Prof Sukow link to prove that stray light
exist and affects the laser.
He also made other sweeping statement like , I quote again "Not true.
Plextor and Pioneer are simply trying to sell product".
The view of Plextor is the light reflected by the laser beam causes
the existing of pollution of reflected light. The CIRC can easily
correct C1 and C2 errors. However, while correcting MORE C1 errors
the circuit may induce spikes on the power line which will travel to
analogue output circuit.
Now let's go back to Green Pen and Black tray.
Both, "allegedly" reduce stray light. Yes or No.
Q1. Is there stray light in the CD player?
Q2. Can stray light cause C1 errors?
Q3. Can CIRC and other algorithms correct C1 errors?
Q4. Is it possible that too many C1 errors can induce spikes on the
power line affecting analogue output circuit?
Q5. Can black absorbs light?
Q6. Can green absorb light?
So as a layman, who is deprived of expertise in the field of physics,
am I guilty of drawing a logical conclusion that it is possible that
black tray or green pen may improve sound?
It is a straight forward question. I am not asking about illusion or
Delusion.
Chelvam
> Chelvam wrote:
>
snip..snip..
> >
> >Yes, like David copperfield making the Statue of Liberty
> >dissappear.-Illusion.
> >
> >But when only me alone can see Mr Shakti and Mr Green making the Statue
> >dissappears, that's delusion. correct?
>
> Except you're not the only one--not by a long shot. The first time I heard
a
> CD treated with the green pen, it sounded better to me. That was the
> beginning of my education in how easy it is for our ears to trick us.
>
That reminds me. Now, I find the damping which I did a month or so did not
sound as good as I heard it the first day. maybe my education has just
begun.
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>The topic of the thread is "Black colour and Jitter".
>
>All I wanted to know if Plextor's claim is tenable. Mr. Pinkerton
>said, echoing my word ".No, it doesn't, but some weirdos have
>certainly *claimed* that it does..............".,
>
>And he went on , I quote "None of which can possibly have *any* effect
>on the datastream being read off the disc. How many times does this
>have to be explained? The reflected beam from the reading laser is
>*hundreds* of times more intense than any possible reflection from the
>edge of the disc, and *thousands* of times more intense than any
>possible extraneous interfering source, and it only has to provide a
>zero/one discrimination. It's probably the most rugged and reliable
>data source ever invented."
>
>Was Mr.Pinkerton correct, or was his statement need to be qualified?
>Unfortunately, the other knowledgeable persons kept quite. Some did
>email me privately giving useful explanation why and why not.
So why are *you* faling to quote what *they* said? Could it be because
they confirmed what *I* said, and which is such common knowledge that
other people saw no point in repeating it? How many people have to
tell you that CD lasers operate in the near infra-red, before you
believe it?
> Some
>attacked me on other issues but not the issue of black colour and
>jitter.
>
>Mr. Pinkerton then went on "Can we just kill this nonsense once and
>for all? CD players read discs using a light source which is
>*thousands* of times more intense than any possible external light
>source - even if you shone a car headlight directly at the disc, or
>left it in direct sunlight, you would not affect the datastream. This
>would be the case for white, red, blue, green or even infrared light."
>
>He did not explain why but he wanted this "nonsense" to be stopped.
It's a good basic principle to stop nonsense being propagated........
> In
>this context I provided Prof Sukow link to prove that stray light
>exist and affects the laser.
Indeed it can, under *laboratory* conditions used to teach students
how *not* to design an optical system! You showed *no* evidence that
this effect has *ever* occurred in a production CD player.
>He also made other sweeping statement like , I quote again "Not true.
>Plextor and Pioneer are simply trying to sell product".
>
>The view of Plextor is the light reflected by the laser beam causes
>the existing of pollution of reflected light. The CIRC can easily
>correct C1 and C2 errors. However, while correcting MORE C1 errors
>the circuit may induce spikes on the power line which will travel to
>analogue output circuit.
Where did you get *this* nonsense from? Every single bit of output
data could be corrected, and it would make *no* difference whatever to
the power lines, because *all* the data are reconstructed and run
through the error correction process. That's how the system *works*.
Please stop making up these fairy tales.
>Now let's go back to Green Pen and Black tray.
>Both, "allegedly" reduce stray light. Yes or No.
Probably not.
>Q1. Is there stray light in the CD player?
Yes, a tiny fraction of a per cent.
>Q2. Can stray light cause C1 errors?
Not in a production CD player.
>Q3. Can CIRC and other algorithms correct C1 errors?
Yes - that's what it's *for*.
>Q4. Is it possible that too many C1 errors can induce spikes on the
>power line affecting analogue output circuit?
No.
>Q5. Can black absorbs light?
It may have no effect at 780nm.
>Q6. Can green absorb light?
It probably has no effect at 780nm.
>So as a layman, who is deprived of expertise in the field of physics,
>am I guilty of drawing a logical conclusion that it is possible that
>black tray or green pen may improve sound?
You are guilty of drawing an *illogical* conclusion. You are also
guility of attempting to shore up that opinion with irrelevant data
which you admit you do not understand.
>It is a straight forward question. I am not asking about illusion or
>Delusion.
The 'green pen effect' *is* an illusion.
Chelvam
news:bA5Gc.24266$MB3.22433@attbi_s04...
> On 4 Jul 2004 15:10:52 GMT, "Chelvam" <che...@myjaring.net> wrote:
...
> >snip..snip...
> >
> >> Not true. Plextor and Pioneer are simply trying to sell product, but
> >> back *any* transport with say a Benchmark DAC-1 and all such
> >> 'differences' disappear.
> >
> >Now I need a $1000 DAC to tell no difference.
>
> I'm simply pointing out that the Benchmark DAC-1 (at less than a tenth
> of what Mark Levinson will charge you) makes a mockery of such claims.
>
Mr.Pinkerton this is a new link that I found which repaets almost every
thing you said.
Don't tell me you are behind it..
Excerpts:-
Myth -You need a good transport to hear the best quality possible.
Solution - Nonsense! What you need is any average transport with a digital
output. Then all you need to do is slave it to the Master DAC 2004.
Was it Ban who was looking for a DAC? Maybe Mr.Pinkerton would recommend
this.
http://www.lessloss.com/myths.html
good luck!
Stewart Pinkerton
>"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:bA5Gc.24266$MB3.22433@attbi_s04...
>> On 4 Jul 2004 15:10:52 GMT, "Chelvam" <che...@myjaring.net> wrote:
>...
>
>> >snip..snip...
>> >
>> >> Not true. Plextor and Pioneer are simply trying to sell product, but
>> >> back *any* transport with say a Benchmark DAC-1 and all such
>> >> 'differences' disappear.
>> >
>> >Now I need a $1000 DAC to tell no difference.
>>
>> I'm simply pointing out that the Benchmark DAC-1 (at less than a tenth
>> of what Mark Levinson will charge you) makes a mockery of such claims.
>>
>
>Mr.Pinkerton this is a new link that I found which repaets almost every
>thing you said.
>
>Don't tell me you are behind it..
Certainly not - as it is a quite different concept from the Benchmark
DAC-1, which I *do* recommend. The LessLoss DAC will *only* provide
superior performance to a one-box player *if* the transport is slaved
to it. This is not always possible, and requires the original
player/transport to be modified, voiding any warranty.
OTOH, everything I've said is common knowledge, so it's hardly
surprising if you find it repeated elsewhere.
>Excerpts:-
>
>Myth -You need a good transport to hear the best quality possible.
>
>Solution - Nonsense! What you need is any average transport with a digital
>output. Then all you need to do is slave it to the Master DAC 2004.
Alternatively, you could just use a good one-box player!
>Was it Ban who was looking for a DAC? Maybe Mr.Pinkerton would recommend
>this.
>
>http://www.lessloss.com/myths.html
>
>good luck!
I still prefer the more elegant approach of the Benchmark, although
the LessLoss is certainly *capable* of good performance if used with a
suitable transport/player. Note also that the Benchmark is about half
the price of the LessLoss DAC2004 - assuming that it doesn't cost too
much to modify your existing player/transport. The LessLoss also
adopts a rather 'high-end' approach to its advertising on the website,
being very long on 'audiophile' chitchat and short on hard engineering
measurements. Compare and contrast with the Benchmark site, and note
that several top mastering engineers use a Benchmark DAC-1 as their
ahh, benchmark DAC for listening to final mixdowns.
Chelvam
> >
> >The view of Plextor is the light reflected by the laser beam causes
> >the existing of pollution of reflected light. The CIRC can easily
> >correct C1 and C2 errors. However, while correcting MORE C1 errors
> >the circuit may induce spikes on the power line which will travel to
> >analogue output circuit.
>
> Where did you get *this* nonsense from?
From another engineer. see
http://www.plextor.be/technicalservices/technology/The%20Process%20of%20Writ
ing.pdf
>
> >Now let's go back to Green Pen and Black tray.
> >Both, "allegedly" reduce stray light. Yes or No.
>
> Probably not.
"Probably not" meaning you not absolutely sure.
> >Q1. Is there stray light in the CD player?
>
> Yes, a tiny fraction of a per cent.
So there is stray light.
> >Q2. Can stray light cause C1 errors?
>
> Not in a production CD player.
But stray light cause C1 errors, right?
> >Q3. Can CIRC and other algorithms correct C1 errors?
>
> Yes - that's what it's *for*.
>
> >Q4. Is it possible that too many C1 errors can induce spikes on the
> >power line affecting analogue output circuit?
>
> No.
> >Q5. Can black absorbs light?
>
> It may have no effect at 780nm.
Can I say "may" is not so scientific. It should be "Yes" or "No"
> >Q6. Can green absorb light?
>
> It probably has no effect at 780nm.
Probably again. Not sure or maybe possible.?
> You are guilty of drawing an *illogical* conclusion. You are also
> guility of attempting to shore up that opinion with irrelevant data
> which you admit you do not understand.
For now, I am all yours to be educated, but I will ask many more questions.
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ccmag...@news4.newsguy.com...
>> On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 02:30:42 GMT, tche...@hotmail.com (TChelvam)
>> wrote:
>>
>snip..snip..
>
>> >
>> >The view of Plextor is the light reflected by the laser beam causes
>> >the existing of pollution of reflected light. The CIRC can easily
>> >correct C1 and C2 errors. However, while correcting MORE C1 errors
>> >the circuit may induce spikes on the power line which will travel to
>> >analogue output circuit.
>>
>> Where did you get *this* nonsense from?
>
From another engineer. see
>http://www.plextor.be/technicalservices/technology/The%20Process%20of%20Writ
>ing.pdf
You are obviously referring to section 10 - About Write Quality. I
find it interesting that, despite Plextor's claims of engineering
expertise, no measurements whatever are shown to back a sweeping
claim that such spikes are generated. I've never seen *any*
engineering evidence that this is so - nor do I know of any
engineering reason why it *should* be so. Let me repeat - the error
correction circuitry does *not* work any harder when correcting
errors, so where are these spikes supposed to be generated?
As a matter of fact, while the article is a good 'dummies guide' to CD
writing, it actually contains no measurements or statistics whatever,
just lots of claims that how Plextor does things is superior. I
suspect that it was written by the marketing department, with input
from the engineers as to how things are done, but not how *much* they
are done better by Plextor. It's also worth noting that Plextor is
primarily a *software* company. This should be obvious from the
content of the article, in which only the last paragraph out of 22
pages makes any reference to hardware. If you want *real* expertise
regarding the hardware of CD replay, then go to Philips or Sony.
>> >Now let's go back to Green Pen and Black tray.
>> >Both, "allegedly" reduce stray light. Yes or No.
>>
>> Probably not.
>
>"Probably not" meaning you not absolutely sure.
Absolute claims are usually made by people with no scientific or
engineering background! If you are more comfortable with absolutes,
then I'll say 'No' to the above. You may translate this to a more
scuentific 'vanishingly small probability' if you like.
>> >Q1. Is there stray light in the CD player?
>>
>> Yes, a tiny fraction of a per cent.
>
>So there is stray light.
See above. I'll rephrase to 'not enough to cause any problems - either
measurable or audible'. To simplify - no.
>> >Q2. Can stray light cause C1 errors?
>>
>> Not in a production CD player.
>
>But stray light cause C1 errors, right?
Not in any player of which I'm aware, hence not in a situation
relevant to consumer audio. To simplify, no.
>> >Q3. Can CIRC and other algorithms correct C1 errors?
>>
>> Yes - that's what it's *for*.
>>
>> >Q4. Is it possible that too many C1 errors can induce spikes on the
>> >power line affecting analogue output circuit?
>>
>> No.
I note that you fail to comment on this statement, or the one above -
perhaps I should stick to absolutes in your case!
>> >Q5. Can black absorbs light?
>>
>> It may have no effect at 780nm.
>
>Can I say "may" is not so scientific. It should be "Yes" or "No"
You are completely wrong, as scientists and engineers hardly ever use
absolute statements. Besides, your question was badly phrased and
irrelevant, since anything *can* do almost anything else, under the
right conditions. If you want to be scientific about it, then you also
failed to define 'black'. My statement was absolutely correct. The
Plextor tray may in fact be transparent in the infra-red, one would
have to *measure* it to be sure. Certainly, a *shiny* 'black' tray
will reflect quite a bit of light. BTW, almost all CD players use a
black loading tray.
BTW, just how does the light get to the black tray in the first place,
since it's on the other side of the highly reflective CD from the
laser?
>> >Q6. Can green absorb light?
>>
>> It probably has no effect at 780nm.
>
>Probably again. Not sure or maybe possible.?
If you wish to be precise, there is no way to be sure without using a
spectrometer. The behaviour of a green dye at 780nm is not
predictable. The fact that a green pen has *never* been shown to have
any effect whatever on the output of a CD player, is however a simpler
bottom line to all this nonsense.
>> You are guilty of drawing an *illogical* conclusion. You are also
>> guility of attempting to shore up that opinion with irrelevant data
>> which you admit you do not understand.
>
>For now, I am all yours to be educated, but I will ask many more questions.
Fine, but try to make them a search for knowledge, rather than simply
an attempt to shore up illogical preconceptions.
Erick Cid
> It's also worth noting that Plextor is
> primarily a *software* company. This should be obvious from the
> content of the article, in which only the last paragraph out of 22
> pages makes any reference to hardware. If you want *real* expertise
> regarding the hardware of CD replay, then go to Philips or Sony.
>
Stewart,
Plextor is a hardware company. In the computer industry, Plextor has
long been regarded as an elite manufacturer of CD/DVD drives and
burners. The only software developed by plextor that I am aware of is
their bundled suite of tools.
Erick
Ban
>>
http://www.plextor.be/technicalservices/technology/The%20Process%20of%20Writ
>> ing.pdf
>
> You are obviously referring to section 10 - About Write Quality. I
> find it interesting that, despite Plextor's claims of engineering
> expertise, no measurements whatever are shown to back a sweeping
> claim that such spikes are generated. I've never seen *any*
> engineering evidence that this is so - nor do I know of any
> engineering reason why it *should* be so. Let me repeat - the error
> correction circuitry does *not* work any harder when correcting
> errors, so where are these spikes supposed to be generated?
>
> As a matter of fact, while the article is a good 'dummies guide' to CD
> writing, it actually contains no measurements or statistics whatever,
> just lots of claims that how Plextor does things is superior. I
> suspect that it was written by the marketing department, with input
> from the engineers as to how things are done, but not how *much* they
> are done better by Plextor. It's also worth noting that Plextor is
> primarily a *software* company. This should be obvious from the
> content of the article, in which only the last paragraph out of 22
> pages makes any reference to hardware. If you want *real* expertise
> regarding the hardware of CD replay, then go to Philips or Sony.
>
This pamphlet was certainly written by a marketing person, trying to please
as many of the potential customers as possible. It seems also in Japan you
find a lot of "subjectivists" even between educated engineers. Many of the
tweaks and snake-oil origin in this "country of the rising sun". It probably
has to do with the utter rationality and control that covers the everyday
life, so as a compensation....
After seing "Lost in Translation" nothing astonishes me any more. Good movie
BTW, if you are an elderly guy, you can easily slip into Murray's part and
enjoy midlife-crisis to the max, same is true for Daddy's little princesses.
:-)
Plextor used to build really the best CDR-burners available, but with
DVD-burners they lost the high-tech image, as those are inferiour to Pioneer
or even LG. In the DVD NGs there are lots of complaints. And they charge at
least 50 to 100% more than the competitors. Seems they join the snake-oil
companies. RIP
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
Steven Sullivan
Plextor isn't a Japanese company, though, and as noted, they are mainly
hardware vendors. Which doens't mean the marketing wing is innocent in this case ;>
> Plextor used to build really the best CDR-burners available, but with
> DVD-burners they lost the high-tech image, as those are inferiour to Pioneer
> or even LG. In the DVD NGs there are lots of complaints. And they charge at
> least 50 to 100% more than the competitors. Seems they join the snake-oil
> companies. RIP
That's a shame. Their CDRW drives never gave me a second of trouble.
But excellent-performing CDRW drives seem to have become a commodity in the
last few years. The no-name one (probably a Mitsubishi or Mitsui, I don't
recall) that came with my new Dell works just as well as my old Plextors
ever did. That sort of competition might have driven Plextor to some
advertising extravagance in order to differentiate themselves from the
pack.
Stewart Pinkerton
Actually, Plextor (originally called Texel) *is* a Japanese company,
although it may reasonably be regarded as a global corporation these
days. It is of course also correct to say that they are a
well-respected hardware company, I had something of a brainfart there
since they are PC rather than audio specialists.
>> Plextor used to build really the best CDR-burners available, but with
>> DVD-burners they lost the high-tech image, as those are inferiour to Pioneer
>> or even LG. In the DVD NGs there are lots of complaints. And they charge at
>> least 50 to 100% more than the competitors. Seems they join the snake-oil
>> companies. RIP
>
>That's a shame. Their CDRW drives never gave me a second of trouble.
>But excellent-performing CDRW drives seem to have become a commodity in the
>last few years. The no-name one (probably a Mitsubishi or Mitsui, I don't
>recall) that came with my new Dell works just as well as my old Plextors
>ever did. That sort of competition might have driven Plextor to some
>advertising extravagance in order to differentiate themselves from the
>pack.
Could be. Certainly, the LG drives in my Evesham PC have a very low
incidence of coaster generation! :-)
chunky_john
Rich.Andrews
news:Xl2Hc.40753$MB3.26650@attbi_s04:
The same sort of effect has been happening for years. When one built
speakers in the 50's, the quality of sound was directly related to the
number of hours spent hand rubbing the finish.
r
--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.
Chelvam
> >> >the existing of pollution of reflected light. The CIRC can easily
> >> >correct C1 and C2 errors. However, while correcting MORE C1 errors
> >> >the circuit may induce spikes on the power line which will travel to
> >> >analogue output circuit.
> >>
> >> Where did you get *this* nonsense from?
> >
>
>http://www.plextor.be/technicalservices/technology/The%20Process%20of%20Writing.pdf
>
> You are obviously referring to section 10 - About Write Quality. I
> find it interesting that, despite Plextor's claims of engineering
> expertise, no measurements whatever are shown to back a sweeping
> claim that such spikes are generated. I've never seen *any*
> engineering evidence that this is so - nor do I know of any
> engineering reason why it *should* be so. Let me repeat - the error
> correction circuitry does *not* work any harder when correcting
> errors, so where are these spikes supposed to be generated?
>
> As a matter of fact, while the article is a good 'dummies guide' to CD
> writing, it actually contains no measurements or statistics whatever,
> just lots of claims that how Plextor does things is superior. I
> suspect that it was written by the marketing department, with input
> from the engineers as to how things are done, but not how *much* they
> are done better by Plextor. It's also worth noting that Plextor is
> primarily a *software* company. This should be obvious from the
> content of the article, in which only the last paragraph out of 22
> pages makes any reference to hardware. If you want *real* expertise
> regarding the hardware of CD replay, then go to Philips or Sony.
After two weeks or so,I have received a reply from Plextor with a
document of an independent testing done by another company not
related in anyway to Plextor or their type of products. What I am
looking here is two graphs measuring C1 errors in a black and white
trays. Unfortunately, the document is confidential. Black colour
certainly reduces C1 errors.
t.hoehler
> speakers in the 50's, the quality of sound was directly related to the
> number of hours spent hand rubbing the finish.
>
Today, the quality of the sound is directly proportional to the thickness of
the component's front panel! <grin>
Tom
Timothy A. Seufert
"Chelvam" <che...@myjaring.net> wrote:
> After two weeks or so,I have received a reply from Plextor with a
> document of an independent testing done by another company not
> related in anyway to Plextor or their type of products. What I am
> looking here is two graphs measuring C1 errors in a black and white
> trays. Unfortunately, the document is confidential. Black colour
> certainly reduces C1 errors.
If the document is confidential why'd they send it out to you, some
random guy on the Internet?
--
Tim
Stewart Pinkerton
>After two weeks or so,I have received a reply from Plextor with a
>document of an independent testing done by another company not
>related in anyway to Plextor or their type of products. What I am
>looking here is two graphs measuring C1 errors in a black and white
>trays. Unfortunately, the document is confidential. Black colour
>certainly reduces C1 errors.
If this were true, why would the document be confidential?
Norman Schwartz
news:T9SKc.120970$IQ4.77838@attbi_s02...
something of value.
Chelvam
news:cdhuq...@news4.newsguy.com...
Yes, Tim I expected that from you and more like to come from others. I only
receive the relevant page showing actual measurements done and not the whole
document and that too after the email got diverted to US, Japan and Denmark.
Maybe, they shared their product development papars due to numerous emails
sent by me. Maybe, they don't just preach but actual conduct the
experiments. maybe, I pleaded ignorance and explained truthfully why I am
seeking the data. If you write to them I am sure they will share it with
you. Whatever being said so far, Plextor does have the technical data to
back up their claim. I am not an engineer to benefit from the papers nor is
my ego going to be affected by proving or disproving that black tray
actually reduces C1 errors (jitter?).
What the document did not disclose is how the overworked CIRC circuit
affects the analogue output. Even then, Plextor already admitted that a
separate power supply for digital and analogue section may make no
difference in quality from the amount of the C1 errors. I am in the midst of
getting that part, too unless someone her on RAHE could provide the theory.
Since this thread started, i did many comparisons and I only find the good
copies that I have made so far sounded superior in my car but not in my
home system ( I can't tell the difference except the earlier once made at
high speed).And now, I think maybe that is due to the inferior design of car
cd players. Just thinking out loud.
For now,
1. Contrary to earlier assertion, we have data to back up that black colour
tray actually reducing C1 errors.
2.The only reason why black tray reduces C1 errors is probably due to stray
lights.
3. I did not hear any different using green pen tweak, and that was maybe
due to the fact my system got a jitter buster and separate power supply for
digital and analogue and a good DAC. But that cannot be conclusive, because
the other guy who heard the difference was using a Accuphase player which I
believed do have separate power supply too. BTW, he heard the difference in
my ssytem, too!!
3. Now, if only I could get some explanation how an overworked circuit
produces spikes that affect the analogue circuit output. Mr. Pinkerton does
make sense that the CIRC circuit engages at all time. Will try to get some
answers from reliable sources.
4.I am just the messenger, so don't shoot me.
Jim
news:cdk79...@news4.newsguy.com:
> [ ...lots of stuff removed...]
>
> 3. Now, if only I could get some explanation how an overworked circuit
> produces spikes that affect the analogue circuit output. Mr. Pinkerton
> does make sense that the CIRC circuit engages at all time. Will try to
> get some answers from reliable sources.
>
Mr. Pinkerton is correct - the error correction circuitry is always active.
Most of the time it's just examining the data looking for errors but the
algorithm is such that the act of looking for errors is almost identical to
the act of correcting errors. Substituting correct values for incorrect
ones should not cause additional noise.
If you substitute "under-designed" for "overworked", maybe the picture
becomes clearer. There may be cases where power is poorly decoupled
(generally no ground and power planes in consumer equipment), allowing
moderate amounts of digital switching noise to be generated, even during
correction-free operation. However, that noise is occurring at frequencies
much higher than audio so there should be no audible impact under steady
state conditions. A correction *might* alter the signature of the noise
slightly though, perhaps to the point where it can be measured. More
likely, as in much of the high-end esoterica, a (barely) possible problem
is "exposed" and the fringe element or the fringe element's marketing
department rushes in to fix it.
-- JS
normanstrong
> >
> > > After two weeks or so,I have received a reply from Plextor with
a
> > > document of an independent testing done by another company not
> > > related in anyway to Plextor or their type of products. What I
am
> > > looking here is two graphs measuring C1 errors in a black and
white
> > > trays. Unfortunately, the document is confidential. Black colour
> > > certainly reduces C1 errors.
Was this a retrospective test? i.e. they happened to have different
color plastics and noted that C1 errors were lower on the unit with
the black tray? If I were to come up with results such as those you
mention above--which make little sense technically--my first act would
be to verify that the change was due entirely to the color of the
tray. I'd certainly investigate thoroughly. Were the different
colors obtained by using different fillers in the plastic? Could the
different chemical composition of the different trays be responsible
and not the actual color. Would painting the white tray black give
the same results? Does a variety of different colors produce
different results? Was the experiment run by swapping the two trays
in the same player, or did they have 2 players which supposedly
differed only in the color of the trays?
In other words, I would pin down this phenomenon until I was sure that
I was observing what I thought I was observing. There is a tendency
of researchers to stop the minute they get interesting results and
publish. That's what happened to Pons and Fleishmann when the did
their cold fusion experiment. They were so eager to publish that they
didn't carefully verify their results. (They probably didn't really
want to.) Scientific researchers are first and foremost human beings,
with all the unfortunate tendencies of our species. They want to
discover things. They don't really want to find out that nothing is
there.
Do you remember "facilitated communication with the autistic?" An
autistic child would be placed before a typewriter and the researcher
would gently support his arm. He would then be able to type out his
thoughts. Some pretty awful things were typed in that fashion,
including accusations of abuse by parents. Proper science would
suggest that the phenomenon be carefully replicated, and the
possibility that the researcher was influencing the results
eliminated. It wasn't. It took hardly any effort at all to disprove
facilitated communication, but that effort was not made for well over
a year. In the meantime, lives were ruined and children were removed
from their parents. Lots of bad things happened.
I can't say that I blame the researchers too much. Can you imagine
what it must be like to devote your working life to trying to get
through to children whose minds are locked up tight? It must have
seemed like sunrise after a long night when facilitated communication
was "discovered." I'm not sure I would have done proper reasearch
either.
Norm Strong
Norman Schwartz
news:%VxLc.134695$a24.115304@attbi_s03...
> In other words, I would pin down this phenomenon until I was sure that
> I was observing what I thought I was observing. There is a tendency
> of researchers to stop the minute they get interesting results and
> publish. That's what happened to Pons and Fleishmann when the did
> their cold fusion experiment. They were so eager to publish that they
> didn't carefully verify their results. (They probably didn't really
> want to.) Scientific researchers are first and foremost human beings,
> with all the unfortunate tendencies of our species. They want to
> discover things. They don't really want to find out that nothing is
> there.
>
This is a bit off topic but having been a scientific researcher, I must take
some offense. Even established scientists, with little for personal gain by
publishing, have to consider the matter of "priority", so they are in effect
pushed into a rush to judgment situation. I'm certain that we all have much
to thank for to all those researchers who also first and foremost human
beings simply doing what we have to do in order to stay alive.
Timothy A. Seufert
"Chelvam" <che...@myjaring.net> wrote:
> "Timothy A. Seufert" <t...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:cdhuq...@news4.newsguy.com...
>> In article <cdhin...@news2.newsguy.com>,
>> "Chelvam" <che...@myjaring.net> wrote:
>>
>>> After two weeks or so,I have received a reply from Plextor with a
>>> document of an independent testing done by another company not
>>> related in anyway to Plextor or their type of products. What I am
>>> looking here is two graphs measuring C1 errors in a black and white
>>> trays. Unfortunately, the document is confidential. Black colour
>>> certainly reduces C1 errors.
>>
>> If the document is confidential why'd they send it out to you, some
>> random guy on the Internet?
>>
>
> Yes, Tim I expected that from you and more like to come from others.
Well, you must admit it sounds more than a little suspicious. "I have
been given proof of X but I cannot reveal it!" Hmmmm....
Keep in mind that one thing which isn't helping your verisimilitude is
that companies which wish to transmit confidential information to
outsiders typically protect themselves by having said outsiders sign a
NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement). NDAs prohibit any discussion of the
material at all with outsiders who are not also covered by NDA. What
you just did would violate any NDA I've ever seen, and leave you open to
legal retribution.
If you really did get sent a document, and did not sign an NDA, you are
not in any way legally bound to protect information they claim is
"confidential", and all you have to worry about is copyright. There are
"fair use" exceptions in copyright law to cover reasonable sharing of
such information for research and education.
> I only
> receive the relevant page showing actual measurements done and not the
> whole
> document and that too after the email got diverted to US, Japan and
> Denmark.
> Maybe, they shared their product development papars due to numerous
> emails
> sent by me. Maybe, they don't just preach but actual conduct the
> experiments. maybe, I pleaded ignorance and explained truthfully why I
> am
> seeking the data. If you write to them I am sure they will share it
> with
> you.
I have a better idea. I have no idea who you wrote to and what you said
to get them to cough up anything, assuming that actually happened. Why
don't you bypass all that, write back to the contact who sent you the
material, and ask nicely if it's OK to share it because you're being
questioned about it?
> For now,
>
> 1. Contrary to earlier assertion, we have data to back up that black
> colour
> tray actually reducing C1 errors.
"We" don't. YOU claim to, but the rest of us have nothing.
> 2.The only reason why black tray reduces C1 errors is probably due to
> stray
> lights.
Nonsense. Have you ever heard of the difference between correlation and
causation in experiment results? Or considered the possibility that bad
experiment design and/or execution created false correlation, leaving
the question of causation moot?
That brings me back to why the "I've got PROOF! but I can't show you"
thing gives me pause. We need access to the supposed proof in order to
figure out whether it's actually a proof.
BTW, ideally one should get the whole report for such critical
examination, not just the table of data.
> 3. I did not hear any different using green pen tweak, and that was
> maybe
> due to the fact my system got a jitter buster and separate power
> supply for
> digital and analogue and a good DAC.
No, it was due to the fact that the green pen tweak doesn't work and
never did.
> But that cannot be conclusive, because
> the other guy who heard the difference was using a Accuphase player
> which I
> believed do have separate power supply too. BTW, he heard the
> difference in
> my ssytem, too!!
I'm sure he thought he did. Did either of you set up a double blind
test to really find out?
> 3. Now, if only I could get some explanation how an overworked circuit
> produces spikes that affect the analogue circuit output. Mr. Pinkerton
> does
> make sense that the CIRC circuit engages at all time. Will try to get
> some
> answers from reliable sources.
You've gotten answers from reliable sources already, but you're
resisting listening to them because the answers aren't what you want to
hear.
BTW, I applaud your willingness to pursue other sources, but you need to
work a lot on critical evaluation, because you seem to accept without
hesitation anything which appears to support ideas you'd like to be
true. Worse yet, sometimes you read things into material you find which
actually aren't there.
> 4.I am just the messenger, so don't shoot me.
I'll answer with another cliche: If you can't stand the heat, get out of
the kitchen. :)
--
Tim
Chelvam
"Timothy A. Seufert" <t...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:cdpgc...@news1.newsguy.com...
:
snip...snip..
> > Yes, Tim I expected that from you and more like to come from others.
>
> Well, you must admit it sounds more than a little suspicious. "I have
> been given proof of X but I cannot reveal it!" Hmmmm....
Either, I am just sharing by disclosing what I think is relevant to
this group. I suggest you review the thread. I did suggest anyone with the
necessary credential to confront Plextor. None did.
>
> Keep in mind that one thing which isn't helping your verisimilitude is
> that companies which wish to transmit confidential information to
> outsiders typically protect themselves by having said outsiders sign a
> NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement). NDAs prohibit any discussion of the
> material at all with outsiders who are not also covered by NDA. What
> you just did would violate any NDA I've ever seen, and leave you open to
> legal retribution.
I am prepared for it. I am familiar with NDA . And it is not entirely
correct to say ALL NDAs prohibit any discussion of the material at all with
outsiders. It depends on the terms of the agreement. For what purpose, how
much, on need to know basis, etc.etc.. but that is not relevant to RAHE.
>
> If you really did get sent a document, and did not sign an NDA, you are
> not in any way legally bound to protect information they claim is
> "confidential", and all you have to worry about is copyright. There are
> "fair use" exceptions in copyright law to cover reasonable sharing of
> such information for research and education.
Yes, Sir. I am familiar with copyright law, too. On the other hand, I
believe in "my word is my bond". I gave them an undertaking/assurance and it
would be MORALLY wrong for me to breach them.
>
> I have a better idea. I have no idea who you wrote to and what you said
> to get them to cough up anything, assuming that actually happened.
Doubts in your mind? Our basis of engaging in RAHE is based on being honest
with each others' views and opinions. If you are implying me of making up
some documents to win a trivial point in an open forum, then I say it is not
my nature. But now on, I will be more cautious with others' opinions here on
RAHE since they too may manufacture evidence to suit an argument or rely on
established principles/theories without experimenting anymore for being
afraid of being proven wrong.
Under normal circumstances, I would not discuss an issue which I can't
substantiate for fear of being ridiculed but among friends and persons I
respect I tend to throw caution in the air. I respect your contribution but
for you to keep on doubting the documents in my possession. In that case, it
is no longer an issue of "Black colour and jitter".
> Why
> don't you bypass all that, write back to the contact who sent you the
> material, and ask nicely if it's OK to share it because you're being
> questioned about it?
For a person who has taken the initiative to get Plextor talk, don't you
think that I would have done that too.?
>
> > For now,
> >
> > 1. Contrary to earlier assertion, we have data to back up that black
> > colour
> > tray actually reducing C1 errors.
>
> "We" don't. YOU claim to, but the rest of us have nothing.
Speaking for all in RAHE? I know at least one posting in support of Green
Pen Tweak.
>
> > 2.The only reason why black tray reduces C1 errors is probably due to
> > stray
> > lights.
>
> Nonsense. Have you ever heard of the difference between correlation and
> causation in experiment results? Or considered the possibility that bad
> experiment design and/or execution created false correlation, leaving
> the question of causation moot?
What would you do if Plextor actually publishes their experiments and
developments papers? You will repeat the same but will never conduct the
experiment yourself nor confront anyone for making false claim. Oh just
remembered, somebody already explained in details why they don't do such
things under a different thread.
> That brings me back to why the "I've got PROOF! but I can't show you"
> thing gives me pause. We need access to the supposed proof in order to
> figure out whether it's actually a proof.
Don't ask me. Plextor is the one claiming so. Someone claimed they did not
publish any data to back up the claim. Now, I have seen the data but that's
not good enough.
BTW the company which conducted the measurements specializes in some
measurements equipments, if my google search is pointing to the same company
referred to the document. Most of the info is in Japanese.
>
> BTW, ideally one should get the whole report for such critical
> examination, not just the table of data.
I was bit disappointed for not getting the part on "CIRC circuit induces
spikes", still trying to figure out who will be the best person to answer
the question. I am not questioning your credibility but I was hoping they
actual designer or whoever making such claims to provide some proof. The
main difficulties I am having is getting the correct terms to phrase the
questions otherwise to get a response is next to impossible.
> I'm sure he thought he did. Did either of you set up a double blind
> test to really find out?
Yes, I did but couldn't tell the diff. in his case, he wasn't cooperative
but he is still using them. Anyway it no longer a question of hearing the
difference but whether black tray or green pen actually reduces jitter or C1
errors.
>
> > 3. Now, if only I could get some explanation how an overworked circuit
> > produces spikes that affect the analogue circuit output. Mr. Pinkerton
> > does
> > make sense that the CIRC circuit engages at all time. Will try to get
> > some
> > answers from reliable sources.
>
> You've gotten answers from reliable sources already, but you're
> resisting listening to them because the answers aren't what you want to
> hear.
What is so wrong about one wanting to explore all the avenues before being
certain about something. Many do not want to become the "punching bag" of
some experts here for saying things contrary to physics.
> BTW, I applaud your willingness to pursue other sources, but you need to
> work a lot on critical evaluation, because you seem to accept without
> hesitation anything which appears to support ideas you'd like to be
> true. Worse yet, sometimes you read things into material you find which
> actually aren't there.
You must be referring to Sukow's link.
>
> > 4.I am just the messenger, so don't shoot me.
>
> I'll answer with another cliche: If you can't stand the heat, get out of
> the kitchen. :)
You are absolutely right. keep away form all trouble. Many messengers are
learning that the hard way. Its a mad world out there.