Rodman99999...FYI...Bose pilot's noise-canceling headsets are almost universally preferred by pilots over other noise-canceling headsets which cost less. |
Rodman99999...As a Bose user you have to have a thick skin!! But I was surprised to find in the responses to my comments that quite a few audiophiles have Bose 901s in their past, and more than one thought they sounded good under the right circumstances. |
The ear is arguably the best measurement device when what you are measuring is sound...say the output of a loudspeaker. However, when evaluating what goes on in the digital domain review of digital data streams (or files) is arguably perfect. A bit-for-bit comparison of two files is relatively easy to do if you have the right facilities, and will tell you for sure if the tweak caused any change. If there was a bit changed here or there (IMHO unlikely) you could review the nature of the changes and decide if any audible result could be expected. |
Tbg...If you "hear a difference between two digital copies that are identical" (to quote you) then your sense of hearing involves more than sonic vibration of the air. All I said it that for information in the digital domain, (before the D/A, amplification, and loudspeaker) an exact and completely non-subjective comparison can be made.
I guess you are right...you don't understand logic. |
Shadorne...I don't think that Tbg is talking about digital errors, which, as you described, are completely avoided by use of the RS error-correcting code. Anyone who claims that "bits ain't bits" is simply ignorant of digital technology. Tbg says that identical (bit for bit) files sound different when run through the same D/A, amplification, and speakers. In particular it's been said that the sound is louder after the CD is treated. Absurd!
I was not there when this treatment was demo'd so I can't dispute the statement that many people heard a difference. But the reason is not to be found in the digital domain. Many people believe in UFOs. |
Douglas_schroeder...The way to make music subjectively louder is to add distortion! But I don't think your treatment does that either.
My closing remark about UFOs was not arrogant, but just intended to poke a bit of fun, and get a rise out of the true believers. I guess I succeeded. |
OK Guys...This whole thing is supposed to be fun. Don't get your nose out of joint.
Rodman99999...The Bose issue is a perfect example of the "you won't believe it until you try it" arguement. I posted about the UNEXPECTED good sound from the hated Bose901 speakers when used in a very large swimming pool room. I took the trouble to comment on this because it was so unexpected. We can speculate about why this is so. I attribute it to the large unobstructed reflective wall behind the speakers, and replacement of the Bose equalizer with a Behringer DEQ2496. If I were to do the RainX experiment I would naturally use my "good" system with the Maggies.
Douglas_schroeder...If I told you that RainX on your dashboard would dramaticly improve your car's gas milage, would you think it worth trying?
As I have mentioned before I have absolutely zero problem with CDs and DVDs skipping. Never have with several players since CDs were invented. I never clean CDs (unless I spill coffee on them or something like that. I have a theory that frequent cleaning is the cause of the problems that some folk report. I know that the precision optical devices which are used in my work are dusted off with a soft brush once a year or so. Cleaning is detramental to them, and CDs may be the same. |
Douglas_schroeder...Sorry about the "I don't think" phrase. I will try to remember to use "IMHO" which seems to be acceptable :-)
If RainX costs only $2.99 I will try it. I can always use the stuff on my car. (Their washer fluid is excellent). But, probably not on the dashboard. |
Douglas_schroeder...FYI...I was urged by Sean, of fond memory, to try something other than zip cord for speaker wire. He loaned me some audiophile-approved wires to try out and I did a listening test. With two speakers side by side, one wired with zip cord and the other with the speaker wire, I did seem to hear a difference, and thought it was probably a very slight improvement. As a result I bought some Goertz wires.
On the other hand, my evaluation of a Cryo-treated AC outlet produced the opposite conclusion.
My mind is indeed "open". How many audiophiles would consider using Bose 901 speakers!!! |
Dgarretson...It is a known fact that if you wash and wax your light airplane you will typically gain 1 or 2 mph. But an airplane is very sensitive to aerodynamics. Squashed bugs on the wing leading edge break up the laminar airflow, and that increases drag.
I thought that someone might suggest what you did, and that's why I said "dashboard". But even on the windshield, do you really think it would have any measurable effect? Would you take the trouble to design and execute an experiment? |
Dgarretson...There is a line somewhere between enthusiasm and madness. You and I may draw that line differently. I would humbly suggest that testing the limit of a turbo-charged BMW motorcycle is over the top, and it appears that you have come to that view also.
But, I will do your RainX thing, and report my observations. |
It used to be that application for a patent had to be accompanied by a model of the invention. Somewhere in Washington DC there is a warehouse with thousands of interesting models. They changed the rule, and now models are not required with one or two specific exceptions. One such exception is a perpetual motion machine. You have to submit a working model of that. There are some things that are just impossible. |
Repairing scratches that cause skips is not the same thing as making a perfectly good disc sound better, or louder. Scratch repair is plausible. |
I bought the Rain-X. The package says "do not use on plastics..." I'm sure I have a disc that I don't care about and it will get the treatment. If I try it and it doesn't work am I then authorized to say so?
I know it works on windshields, so my $3.99 will not be wasted. |
OK. I did the test.
First of all I connected my CD player directly to one of my Behringer DEQ2496. The 2496 logs the peak signal level over the course of a complete CD. I made the hookup directly so that there was no gain control in the signal path. I played a CD twice, before and after treatment. For the two playings, the peak signal level was identical for both channels...-4.2dB for Left and -4.1 for right. That proves to me that there is no increase of loudness as a result of treatment.
With regard to sonic quality, I heard no difference, but this kind of comparison is difficult, and highly subjective, and everyone is free to believe what they want. I know what I think. |
Douglas_schroeder and Tbg...Note my words..." but this kind of comparison is difficult, and highly subjective...". Implied here is that there might have been a change (improvement?) but if so it was not great enough for me to notice vs what I heard an hour ago. In this test you can't go back and listen to the untreated disc again. The test which someone should do (probably someone who sells a disc treatment product) is a bit-for-bit comparison of digital data files from treated and untreated discs. Maybe there's a reason why they don't do this. |
Agreed this is a very civil discussion.
By the way, my idea for a bit-by-bit comparison of digital files was not to suggest that such a test would have anything to do with sonic quality, which is a subjective thing. I look on such a test as a pre-requisite for there being a sonic improvement. I say, if the bits are identical, so is the sound. If they are different, then we go listen some more. |
Tbg...Yes, but all you would prove is that each disc was copied without error, but they could be different discs.
What is needed is software that will compare two files that have been read into the computer as you suggest, one file before disc treatment and one after.
This would be a lot of number crunching! However, just the first minute of music would comprise 5.28 million bits, and the handwriting should be on the wall by that point. |
Tbg...."Zero errors" means exactly that. The copied digital file is an exact duplicate of the original.
Science is sometimes proven wrong when it extends into new areas. Not often, but frequently enough to provide ammunition for debates like this. There is no reason to abandon science in areas that are well understood. You can't argue against Ohm's law, for example.
You might enjoy a book I read once "The Big Bang Never Happened". As you know the Big Bang cosmological theory is almost universally accepted, but the alternative, continuous creation is convincingly set forth in this book. The first chapter, which you would most enjoy, describes all the "firmly established" scientific theories that have proven wrong. Of course, creation of the universe is an example of an area where you might expect science to be on shaky ground. But do you really think it possible that the earth is supported by four elephants standing on the back of a tortoise? |
