I suspect strongly that "bits ain't bits." That is where we differ in belief. After many years of "brainwashing" in computer science, time series analysis, physics, maths etc. - a lot of it in graduate school courses in signal processing. I have complete faith in digital. I trust it. Although many implementations of digital to analog conversions do have problems and quality is variable - digital data is tremendously robust and as perfect as we want or design it to be. So a data bit can be preserved very accurately even if an individual "pit" on a CD may be a rather unreliable thing. It is miraculously black and white. You can copy digital stuff perfectly thousands of times. This is NOT becuase the analog storage devices are so good. In fact analog storage devices are rather inaccurate with an average hardrive/CD/DVD having many faults. The key is in the mathematics and data redundant overhead...digital allows us stick data through large polynomials etc. and generate a whole bunch of redundant data which is all related to the raw data. Think of a 3 x 3 matrix filled with numbers where you are also given the sum for each row and column (extra redundant data). You can lose information in the square or in the redundnat data and still reconstruct the entire square perfectly because you know that it is encoded with the relationship that the rows and columns add up to the extra redundant numbers stored along with the raw data. All this information is written onto the analog media - the data AND the extra redundant information. The redundant information allows the software to mathematically reconstruct the data perfectly DESPITE plenty of imperfections in the media. The less perfect the media - the more redundant data you need in order to maintain perfect precision. I understand why people are skeptical - that mathematics has such power to add incredible precision to our imprecise world is one of the technological marvels of this century. Everything relies on this - including your cellphone and your bank statements and not to mention everything you read on these forums. Philosphically it presents a real challenge to our thinking. Digital is a very similar challenge akin to those who had to face the evidence that the earth was not actually flat. Everything we see day in and day out in our lives tells us the Earth is flat - it looks that way from our perspective! It is even diffiult today for us to conceptualize that people on the other side of this large ball do NOT fall off. All this goes completely against ALL our daily experiences and observations about what we see around us. Digital is the same. The incredible precision that comes through mathematics defies everything we know and observe about the ordinary world around us. Nothing we see or touch is ever as precise as the mathematical constructs used...even the CD itself is woefully imprecise as is anything we can manufacture...but it is the theoretical mathematical constructs that we use to store bits on a CD that makes the "DATA" it holds extremely precise. |
A question you may want to investigate is what could possibly be wrong with the way the transport was reading a clean unscratched CD in the first place?
Remember CD's are digital not analog - there should be no "surface noise" with a CD in good condition. |
So something real may be happening. (besides suggestion) If something is happening and you are getting improvements this way then it suggests an issue somewhere. Perhaps jitter is getting into the DAC of the CDP and this is partly created by minute changes of the laser (smooth versus not so smooth). Ed Meitner claimed that cryogenic treatment of CD's helped - however, IMHO, this all sounds like a band-aid solution. To my way of thinking, a transport should not be so finnicky as to require all this extra special CD treatment simply to play a digital CD properly - a CDP player should be more robustly designed than that. |
Shadorne, There is nothing wrong with his transport. From my experience treatment of discs works on ALL cdp's. Then I'd suggest PC audio + external DAC or CDP player + external DAC (re-clocking DAC preferably) => this way you completely separate the transport laser "smoothness" issues from the D to A conversion. Just common sense really - rather than treat every disc which seems impractical. (how do you even know when enough treatment has been made?) |
Shadorne, Consider changing the entire set up because a low budget treatment improves sound? Absolutely! I find it totally unacceptable that digital equipment should perform so badly. Analog has major problems in this area (must be clean and even then you get surface noise) but digital should not be a problem. This is shoddy design - something awful is going on if you get such an improvement. It works the same with transports using external DACS. I have tested it as well with Benchmark DAC1 and Monarchy M-24 pre/DAC. Are you saying that a proper re-clocking DAC like the DAC1 can tell if a bit was read by the laser from a treated disc or an ordinary disc? I find this beyond credibility - not unless the disc was damaged or really dirty and some interpolation* was going on in order to generate the bit stream by "guessing". If the CD is in good condition but a CDP is making extensive interpolation (without help from a special green marker CD treatment) then it is a fault of the equipment, IMHO. I, for one, would rather spend five bucks and a few hours of my time rather than sell off and purchase a new source. This may be acceptable for you - but if the sound changes audibly with special treatment (other than simply a clean unscratched disc) then basically it proves the equipment is faulty or at the very least sub-par. No audiophile should accept that, IMHO. Say a CD improves 10% after treatment - how in the world do you know that the poor performance of the transport/laser is not still affecting the sound quality by a further 10%? I would not be satisifed with this situation and I would want to get to the bottom of it. *interpolation - this is very bad as this means missing bits that cannot be reconstructed without a "guess" (these occur about 1 uncorrectable bit in 1,000,000,000 under normal conditions) If you ever heard a CD with "CD Rot" then this is an example of massive interpolation going on - so much data is bad that you are hearing interpolation or "guessing" nearly all the time. I guess it boils down to philosopy or expectation of what digital equipment should be capable of - to me digital should be a lot more robust than you seem willing to accept. |
Shadorne, surely you're not going to let a lousy buck or two for some soft car polish or Rain-X, or whatever, stop you from such a discovery? True the money would not stop me. However, you would be amazed at the effects of years of scientific conditioning and brainwashing. I simply can't bring myself to perform what my preconditioning tells me would be a senseless task. It may seem strange but I will not waste one minute on car wax or green markers but I have spent many hours reading most of the orginal papers by Sony and Philips on the CD format and CIRC coding and countless technical documents from AES. People are wired differently. See this. The two camps often have trouble understanding eachothers behaviour. Each spends hours doing things that the other would think is pointless. Depending on where one sits in Myers Briggs one could have completely opposite opinion about the value of double blind testing. |
Touche...I don't consider anecdotal reports of CD sound improvement as a valid excuse to go treating my CD's with car wax or green markers, but you are being persistent ;-) |
You consistently suggest to others that if there is a change to the sound through said treatments there is a "problem" with their gear Absolutely correct. You got it. When you have to resort to green markers and fancy cables to get the right sound then the equipment is NOT doing its job properly. A CD player is not reading a CD properly. Or a speaker and amplifier are poorly matched. Or a Pre and power amp have problems (ground loops etc.) Jitter is a problem which is well documented and undeniable. However it is an EQUIPMENT problem. Standard Redbook CD does not call for "green markers" in the standards. If a redbook player does not read a redbook CD properly then it is the fault of the EQUIPMENT => Get a better player. I think a fear lies behind the unwillingness to test it out. Not really. I well know that my equipment is far from perfect but that does not worry me. It is good enough for my tin ears. If there is any fear it is that I would be starting down a slippery path that eventually leads to magic pebbles or special acoustic tuned cups and directional cryogenic cables. My wife is an engineer too and she would definitely think I was completely wacko - if anything that would make me fearful or at least extremely embarassed to take such steps. |
When dealing with $10k components and high end speakers, I would assert that one had better hear such influcences as a power cable change, disc treatment, etc. or else the designation "audiophile component" is questionable. The anecdotal evidence for this seems irrefutable. To top it off, with break-in lasting sometimes 1000 hours or more - not atypical in an audiophile designated component - it seems quite plausible that most designated "audiophile components" will never sound the same twice, ever. I am happy with my "target" quality gear - it works for my tin ears. Thankfully, I get the same old crappy response every time. |
I don't understand why you would say a piece of equipment never sounds the same twice.I also don't understand why you would say "target" quality gear always sounds the same Tbg, It was just a simple game of logic. If a designated "audiophile component" is expected to make any small changes clearly audible then it stands to reason that it is very unlikely to ever sound the same twice. (Small changes would be a power cord - heat - break-in - the shine on the CD surface - you know all the examples I have been given). Given that the power quality from the utility company is varying all the time depending on what is or is not in use along your street then given any audio device inherently as sensitive as described above it just stands to reason it will rarely, if ever, sound the same. "Target" gear being less sensitive will surely behave in the opposite way - it may not sound good but it won't be as sensitive to minute details and is much more likley to always sound the same. |
You believe in a process that's slow and neigh unto imperceptible which changes components over 1,000 hours, Actually I don't - at least not for my crap target gear. My example was just taking the attributes commonly ascribed to a designated "audiophile component" by yourself and others and making a logical conclusion. Now you say burn-in is imperceptible - well if it is imperceptible then how come so many people claim to hear it? I see no point to going any further as this is becoming ridiculous - it is becoming just an argument for arguments sake. I don't want to continue to contribute to this. i'll finish by saying that this statement by stereophile just about sums things up From my measurements, it is apparent that none of these CD tweaks have any effect on a player's error-correction ability or on the amount of jitter in the HF signal. However, it is beyond doubt that they increase the musicality of CDs. Just as in analog audio, there are things going on in digital audio that have not been identified, but influence sonic characteristics. There are indeed things going on inside the head of the listener and this has been documented tens of thousands of times: a very well understood scientific phenomenon called "The Placebo Effect". Humans are not machines. We are not instruments of precision. Our perceptive senses are significantly modified by our expectations. The only question is "Why do some people refuse to accept the obvious conclusion?" I explained in several posts above with a reference to Jung and Myers Briggs...a lot has to do with personality as to whether a particular individual is willing to accept that his/her own perceptions are easily modified by his/her expectations. |
the belief in the Placebo effect to explain clear observation is unscientific. Tbg, That is a good one! What we "clearly observe" is the truth. Our perceptions are reality. A lot of homeopathic medicine manufacturers would be delighted with this version of the world. They also cannot prove their products work in medical trials but people swear by them. I must remember to put on my copper bracelet with magnets. But lets not drift into philosophy - above I already pointed out some useful psychology to help explain how people sense/perceive/think/judge the world differently. "Target" components is the synonym given by some audiophiles to the kind of system I have chosen. Gear that is not resolving enough to change in response to the mere beating of a butterfly's wings from across a field. It just plays music reliably - what is on the source is pretty much what comes out of the speakers. Of course it sounds awful but I am happy with it. I simply would not want a system that played music unreliably (changes sound audibly with the change of power cord or any other minor detail). Surely this is not so hard to understand ? |
Hmmmm... I would say that is precisely MY argument as regards CD treatment!
Yes indeed, I adopted your description regarding the incredibly sensitive nature of a highly resolving system that would be (in your words) a "designated audiophile component". I accepted it as "fact" just to see what likely conclusions could be expected about the performance of said system. Where we differ is on the kind of performance which is highly desirable to you but not so desirable to me. Perhaps this is reflected in the way our carefuly-selected, respective systems perform. Perhaps this accounts for the strong disagreement about the efficacy of high end cables, interconnects, burn-in and the degree to which many tweaks impact the sound. I imagine you are rightfully proud because your system responds differently to a power cord or car wax treatment on the CD. That is indeed amazing - kudos to you for obtaining such a highly resolving system! Peace. |
semi-deaf, nay-saying, untesting but highly opinionated termites out of the woodwork Good one! Craig has actually stumbled on a free clinic!!! |
Shadorne, yes, but how to you account for the differences in sound that I described? Please don't say we only think we heard them. If what you heard is similar to what is decribed on DAGOGO by Norm Luttbeg then it sounds like it was reduced jitter. This can be explained if you think about a CD rotating and vibrating or the "burned layer" (usually a dye) being uneven from the burner (vibrating disc as it is burnt). The laser pick up will need to make contiunous adjustments in order to remain in focus - since the adjustments are likely repeated upon each revolution of the disc then you create a sinusoidal adjustment to the laser. If the CDP has poor isolation between the laser ciruitry and the DAC then you can create jitter. Normally jitter is most audible when it is NOT RANDOM - i.e when it is periodical. You get sidebands not unlike IMD distortion rather than white noise thay you might get from completely random jitter. The above would be a possible hypothetical "complex" explanation. In both cases (mat or no mat) the CD is bit perfect but the equipment is underperforming due to additional complexities in reading an uneven disc. However, I would be cautious about jumping to conclusions, testing like this is a minefield. The above is just one of many possible answers. For example, another explantion could simply be the setting of the volume - playing the treated CD a mere 1 db SPL louder would probably be just enough for everyone to hear an improvement without anyone noticing the volume was slightly different. Anyway, the fact that Exact copy proved that the two discs were identical (if we accept that) then we are led to suspect either the equipment playback capability or test conditions as suspect. If I was sure it was the gear and had completely eliminated everything else then I'd get rid of the CDP and find one more reliable that does not need a band aid "mat" to work properly. |
Shadorne fumbled the ball. Nah - you just imagined it - wishful thinking - the "placebo" effect! Admit it - you treated the ball with Rain-X so you expected me to drop it! ;-) we are assembling a very interesting case study for objectivist behavior. You are obviously referring to me but I would counter by the simple observation that I am one of hundreds of millions of people around the world who would not dream of doing what you suggest unless it was to fix a badly scratched CD that nolonger played properly. Therefore I am actually pretty dull & boring sitting and sharing similar views to the vast majority of CD listeners (who don't polish their CD collection with Rain-X or mark them with green markers). You however are the "very interesting case study for objectivist behavior"...sitting somewhere way off the end of the bell curve ;-) More seriously, this banter has been a fun diversion and I am glad the gibes were kept civil & polite. I really don't have much more I can add or share on this matter. I feel certain we are connected through our enjoyment of music and a pursuit of our own respective ideals in audio reproduction equipment even if we don't see eye to eye on Rain-X or what defines excellent equipment (robust vs resolving). |
It looks like the Rain-X treatment came to the fore about the same time as the green marker pen. I don't necessarily subscribe to the views in this article but it is interesting that this was in vogue about 18 years ago . |
I am a social scientists and find it quite curious that many who profess to value science, refuse to listen ...science does not value ambiguous individual human subjective interpretation/opinions. Either... Perform a controlled double blind test with a large population and with a meaningful result with statistical confidence. or... Provide a plausable scientific explanation for your miraculous claims. or... measure a difference with an instrument and allow others to repeat and verify your experimental results. Any of the above would be valued by a scientist. Someone who values science would not waste time looking at just any old wacky idea. There has to be some logic....some reasoning...some proof...some plausability. |
Tbg,
Ok so you are on the science high horse.
Well you are absolutely right on. I plead guilty as charged to willfully dampening our understanding of the nature of Rain X and CD treatment.
What about you? Are you going to do something about it? Why not get some grad students to perform a Double Blind study and write an AES paper? Why hasn't AES published something already? Or is this like paranormal stuff...it doesn't work under rigorous test conditions? |
