Eldartford, if you rip the same disc to a harddrive, once without the Millennium cd mat and once with it both using the same software and hardware (with Exact Copy reporting no errors and the same confidence) and then listen in the identical system and everyone "hears" a difference with probably 90% holding your view initially, is it logical to say there can be no difference?
I have had the same experience with discs painted with AVM and not, but various cleaning treatments seem to do nothing. I certainly would not claim to be expert in things digitial, but I do hear compressions degradation of sound even if it is supposedly loseless and I do hear differences in digital cables. I suspect strongly that "bits ain't bits." |
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. |
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. The room at the RMAF was full of skeptics who only tolerated John Tucker doing this on his system. All muttered disbelief when they heard the difference and only John said he had to get one of those puppies. Several others, however, asked me in the hall where they might buy one. |
I'm curious how far into the digital domain Shadorne extends his viewpoint that bits are bits. I too can think of no explanation for why CD media tweaks-- or for that matter tweaks to the optical section of any transport-- should impact sound. And yet I have heard it, and moreover the industry has produced continuous improvement in the manufacture of transport optics & mechanicals up to the current estimable TEAC VRDS-NEO.
Moreover, I have two transports that demonstrate conclusively that "bit ain't just bits." One is a Sony SCD-1, in which the digital section has been modified with improvements to power and passive components in the digital signal path; the other is a stock 777ES (which in stock form has a digital section identical to a stock SCD-1.) I can listen to just the transport sections of both units through identical PDIF cable and identical external Theta Gen 5a DAC, and hear a night and day difference. Go figure. |
I'll add that when I modded that Sony, I started with changes to power into the optics, motor, and servo, and worked my way through the various digital circuits, dealing with replacement of the master clock last. I wanted to be able to distinguish between collective changes made in the digital domain and a clock upgrade. Taken together, changes in the digital section other than the clock, surpassed the replacement clock in significance. Go figure. |
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...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. |
Eldartford, yea, and many believed in alchemy. Please read what I said about treated disc, in my experience not sounding any different. I have withstood some grief about that from others more accustomed to listening first.
Shadorne, at last you are at least seeking alternative hypotheses. All was doing is reporting several observations. |
Eldartford, I have said that the disc which is treated sounds louder than one which is untreated. The phrase "sounds" is perceptual. I would not assert that it actually increases level. However, that is what it sounds like, there is that much of a change in the sound when discs are treated. The entire performance seems much larger, more clean and extended, and louder. On an $80K rig with true full range speakers it's not subtle at all. I have never had a skeptic fail to be swayed after hearing the results. Neither the previous-skeptics nor I have a difinitive explanation, but the results are - yes - undeniable.
Your analogies to UFO's are strained. However, I did see a UFO once. It was orange and triangular, and I do not recall it making a sound, though tried listening for it. It flew like an airplane (straight, not terrifically fast) but, again, it made no sound. I was about 12 at the time, and I told my parents. They scoffed at it, until the next moring Paul Harvey speaking through the kitchen radio announced, "Numerous UFO sightings over Northern Illinois and Southern Wisconsin last night..." My mother was in the kitchen - you should have seen her face! The UFO was a plane painted with gray and florescent stripes taking air samples at dusk as it was flying North. In the twilight at its height it appeared to the naked eye as an orange triangle. The lack of sound was likely due to the influence of wind.
Perceptions are not always wrong. The answer to what lies behind the perceptions is usually logically explainable. However, to scoff at someone who is experiencing something perceptually is often nothing other than arrogance.
I happen not to believe in aliens. I hold that all "UFO" sightings have logical, natural explanations. However, that does not stop people from seeing things which they cannot explain.
Similarly, when individuals like myself report as accurately as we can the experiences we have when conducting listening tests, it's not helpful for someone to argue that we are delusional (placebo effect). So, kindly get off your arrogant UFO analogies. :)
Shadorne fumbled the ball. How would you like to conduct the simple disc treatment/listening test? Will you take the same position that because you already "know" it can't change the outcome you won't conduct the test?
If so, we are assembling a very interesting case study for objectivist behavior. :) |
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). |
"Bit is just bits," someone said.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," Freud said.
But Freud also said:
"My boy, smoking is one of the greatest and cheapest enjoyments in life, and if you decide in advance not to smoke, I can only feel sorry for you." (Freud: A Life for Our Time. Peter Gay, 1989, Anchor Books/Doubleday.) |
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. |
Eldartford, you're big on the phrase, "I don't think..." Why not do the test? You might be less apt to declare, "I don't think," in the future when you haven't the experience. :)
This is application, not theory. You can spew theory all day long and it won't get resolved. Only by conducting the test will it get resolved.
The arrogance in your UFO comment was the intellectual put down, as you, "intented to poke a bit of fun," and "get a rise out of true belivers." That's arrogance, when the opposing viewpoint is dismissed out of hand through belittling comments. You can attempt to excuse it as humor, but I'll call you on it. :)
So, are you going to set listening level, listen to a track on a disc, apply the polish and wipe clean, reinsert and replay the track? If you can't believe your ears for the astonishment, conduct the test on several more discs. The improvement from tretment will be consistent on every disc, as would be expected.
Let me know how it goes. :)
|
He won't hear any difference on Blose 901's anyway(hee hee). What a waste of keystrokes! |
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. |
Eldartford, great response! Thoughtful, considerate, the kind of discussion we can have on thes topics! Kudos! No nose out of joint here; I argue strenuously at times, but I put a lot of these :) in the text to indicate I'm not angry. :) I can get intense, but I try to keep it in perspective (i.e. not wrecking my listening session last night).
I'll take your word for it that the Bose sounds unusually good in that room. :)
If I try Rain-X on my dashboard and my gas mileage improves, would you believe it? ;) Had to throw that one in for fun.
I don't see the analogy as, well... analogous. If you had said, "put Rain-X into the gas tank," then there would be a connection (For any dullards among us, I'm NOT recommending it!). The disc treatment does touch directly (Well, actually, it doesn't directly TOUCH it...)on the performance of the laser assembly, so the issue is direct, not peripheral, as in the car dashboard illustration. For that reason, no, I would not believe you if you told me that it improved mileage. However, if you discussed an adjustment relating to the engine or drive train then I would be without evidence to contradict you unless I tried it out. That is the situation with the disc treatment. It does touch (there we go again...) upon the operation of the laser assembly.
Yes, I would have nothing to say about the optical gear you work with. I also do not repeat the treatments on CD's. It is permanent from my experience, one treatment is "eternal". :) I tested that as well, pulling out discs that had been treated three years ago and re-treating them. Zero additional gain, zero additional audible improvement. This was consistent with my thinking that the gain comes from the initial treatment. Either removal of a coating or making the surface more highly reflective (or both) contributes to the advantage of treating them. In my experience it never needs repeating.
My discs have remained in perfect condition, and some I have had treated for more than five or six years. I wrote an article about Jena Labs' disc treatment product, but was cleaning discs prior to that. I have used a variety of treatments, from simple washing with dish soap and water, to "mystery" solutions, and have used the aforementioned Jena Labs system, which they point out is not a polish, as well as Turtle Wax. If anyone wants to use car polish, I will add a disclaimer that it's not designed for CD's. If you are anxious about potential damage to discs, then use only "approved" solutions by audio manufacturers.
I have found typically two very discernible levels of improvement; one level from cleaning type activites, and the other by polishing type activities. Frankly, now I simply skip the cleaning step and go right to the polish step. The results seem to be the same as if I had cleaned prior to polishing.
Eldartford, I am impressed that you are willing to consider a test. You are more open to practical discovery than I gave you credit for. I would urge you, however, to try two differerent "tests".
#1 Do your critical listening at the level desired. Then, use a harmless cleaning solution, i.e. Dish soap and water, or an audio industry cleaning solution. Conduct listening comparison test. Then, return to the "shop" and polish the disc, with either Rain-X or polish. Once again conduct listening session.
-I'm not sure of your rig or of your (I say this sincerely, not jokingly) hearing acuity, but I believe you should easily hear improvement with the second step for sure.
#2 Remove the cleaning step from the test. Simply compare the polished and unpolished disc. In my experience the polish is the key to the result. And it is with this method that the effect becomes most noticeable.
I would be very interested in what you discover. I think the distinction in sound is so great that I do not need to tell you to approach the test "with an open mind." If it works as it has in my system, the difference will be immeditate and significantly noticeable. You may want to conduct the test with others, i.e. family members, as well once you have done it. :) |
At high velocity where aerodynamic friction becomes significant, it may be true that the smooth surface presented by Rain-X on a windshield may increase both maximum velocity and gas mileage. |
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? |
Eldartford- Don't you think I know all that? Couldn't resist the chain-yank though! If we can't have a little fun in here: What's the point? =8^) |
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. |
Eldartfort, at a younger age I did indeed test the limit of a turbo-charged BMW motorcycle at max speed. Rain-X on a CD is safer & more suited to age and temperment today. Closer to the analogy of hifi, I have no doubt that the limbic system of a Road & Track and Motorcylist enthusiast is wired to make a purchase decision based in part on the tested maximum speed of a sports vehicle-- though the buyer will never use the vehicle at close to that maximum speed. There are bicylists who acquire Campagnolo's latest fibre gruppo for the tangible or intangible advantage of shaving several grams or of obtaining minute marginal improvements in aerodynamics at speed. Associations with performance & even the feint prospect of perfectionism is partly what drives audiophiles toward purchase of statement systems and little tweaks, apart from any interest in music or the real world. The obverse is someone like Shadorne defending his position by falling back on a tin ear or the muddiness of his Target system. Shadorne has obviously never owned a nice Ferrari Daytona or Lambo Miura with six Weber DCOE carbs: runs perfectly when tuned but not at all at other times. A highly transparent audio system can be similarly revealing.
You say you would pay $2.99 for a bottle of Rain-X because it could be used as intended on the car windshield in the event it fails to improve CDs. (1) In the absence of personal experience, why are you prepared to accept the claim that Rain-X is any more effective on a car than on a CD? (2) Why set a limit of $2.99 for a bottle of Rain-X? Why not $3.99 or $9.99, or any price up to full cost of a new transport that makes a difference equal to the improvement of Rain-X? (3) If the windshield wiper on your Mercedes were to break, would you spend $500 to repair the wipers, or $499.99 for a bottle of Rain-X? |
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. |
I miss Sean's posts around here. |
Everyone's comments on using Rain-X on car motivated me to use the now 2 year old Rain-X that I tried on my car windows.
I still maintain that a commitment to an existing theory of what explains observations that dismisses new observations is fundamentally unscientific. |
If everyone maintained a commitment to existing theories of what explains observations that dismissed new observations, there would be no further "science". |
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. |
In the 1850s, about the same time that the first perpetual motion clock was attempted, the miasma theory of how cholera was widely believed by all scientists. Cholera, they thought, came from bad air and bad air came from human excrement. They "knew" Dr. Snow's notion that it was passed in water was simply "impossible." Foolish them! |
I have used car wax on scratched dvd's (netflix) with success...remembering to wipe from center outwards. |
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 just tried the stuff on one of those pesky, non-playing, scratched all to hell DVDs from the video rental store Friday nite. It worked just as well as my UltraBit Platinum(the disc played perfectly after treatment). This thread will save me a lot of money in UBP($4/bottle vs $65/bottle). It's in vogue for me as of two days ago. I'll save the UBP for my CDs. |
Repairing scratches that cause skips is not the same thing as making a perfectly good disc sound better, or louder. Scratch repair is plausible. |
Eldartford, you are correct; I have never used CD treatments as a repair method. My goal is entirely improved sonics. There seems to be some confusion here about scratch repairs and sonics. Any scratch repair in my usage of polishes is entirely incidental.
I wanted to clarify so that you do not think the challenge/concept of CD treatment stems mostly from repairs. My discussion pertains to the usage of disc treatments solely for change/improvement of the sound. |
Douglas(Or anyone else out there who's mind is not concrete on this subject: Thoroughly mixed up, and permanently set), you may want to read this:- (http://www.ultrabitplatinum.com/How_it_Works.html) Whether you believe this information or not- THE PRODUCT WORKS, PERIOD!! If you never try something, you have no valid opinion on the subject and further discussion is simply pissing up the proverbial rope. |
Sorry- I forgot: Your right to Freedom of Speech not withstanding. It's hard to let others have the last word though, isn't it? |
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. |
KUDOS Eldartford- You've taken the first step on the road to recovery(even if you don't hear a difference). You DO know flying with your window open is hazardous to your hearing, right? Or do you always wear a Bose headset too? =8^) |
Rodman, know when enough's enough. The man is actually trying it. I give him credit, as he's willing to investigate what he feels is contradictory to his understanding. He doesn't need hecklers. :)
I'm as "up for a good joke" as anyone but I'm serious about the advantages of disc treatment. It won't help the cause if he's angry or feels he's being mocked for trying it.
If the bottle says it's no good for plastics I would not use it. There are too many other good solutions. It's not worth wrecking a CD long term for the change in sound. I recommend products which will effect the result as well as protect the surface; plastic polish as opposed to Rain-X. |
Douglas- He and I have picked at one another in good humor for some time now. I'm certain he's old(and intelligent) enough to defend himself, thank you. Credit? Look up "KUDOS" in your Funk and Wagnalls. |
I know the word Kudos; I didn't know you two have a history. By all means, carry on with the repartee. :) |
I used Rain-X many years ago on many cds. I have seen no adverse effect on any of them. I have used UltraBit Platinum after discarding George's linty rags. It is not as good, IMHO, as his earlier products. I used his ClearBit as a cleaner until I ran out. For a while I used the Jena Labs cd cleaner, but the Walker Audio Ultra-Vivid is clearly superior. At some point in all of this I also used AudioTop digital, which was quite good but not the equal to Ultra-Vivid.
I have a music server now from Exemplar. I have found that treating cds to rip has no advantage. Sometimes I actually preferred the untreated cd. I fully realize that others might not have my experience.
I have two badly scratched cds that cannot be replaced. One of them I did not have when I was using Rain- |
Somehow this was posted before I finished. I was only going to say that the Walker Ultra-Vivid did allow cd players to play both. |
Rodman99999...FYI...Bose pilot's noise-canceling headsets are almost universally preferred by pilots over other noise-canceling headsets which cost less. |
Mr E- Yeah, There's no doubt that they do work, and very well(hard for me to swallow, given my reactions to some of Amar's past concoctions). Did he learn advertising at MIT too? |
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. |
Eldartford, thank you for conducting a test of the disc treatment. I respect people who actually will try such things. I also will accept your experience and not debate it. Variety of experiences makes for interesting exchanges between audio lovers. |
So, Doug, are you changing your opinion? I continue to be perplexed at sincere beliefs that some hear differences and others do not. I am also fascinated that some love one wine while others hate it. Humans are a varied lot.
I remember several years ago sitting between John Curl and an TAS reviewer listening to a demonstration of the Shun Mook speakers. John and I were struck by the improvement gained by a slight change they made in the speakers. The reviewer heard nothing. My only judgment was that I would pay no attention to his reviews thereafter. He was soon gone. |
Not in the least. I have said before and maintain now that I have heard the difference in my rig between treated and untreated discs clearly. I simply wanted to thank a man who was willing to actually try it. I cannot explain why he did not hear it. I also am not going to continue debate with someone who has tried and did not hear the change. That would be foolish. I will vigorously debate those who argue only from hunches, but there is no value arguing when someone tried and it failed.
I believe due to hearing abilities, the type of treatment used (I much prefer polishing to cleaning), environment, etc. that some will hear it easily and others will not. I have a nearly acoustically perfect room, so even subtle changes are quite readily heard.
If the changes due to treatment were such that I couldn't be sure I had heard them, I wouldn't bother discussing it.
I also make judgments based upon what others say they can or cannot hear. If someone says they cannot hear what I feel should be easily heard, you can bet I won't trust their opinion.
I have had audiophiles come into my room, and I have conducted listening tests on such things as power cords and disc treatments. They have insisted that there is no change. In the course of time I found out they played in live bands extensively. Uh, huh. They had hearing loss. No way would I trust their judgment in what could be heard. :)
It's one thing to have a variance in opinion between what is "preferred" sound. It's another altogether not to even detect the sound. I'm not judging Eldartford on his test; I wasn't there. But I certainly have not been changed in my conclusions from my listening tests. |
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. |
