| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
I thought that the thread was titled CD DeMagnetizing.
Excuse my confusion.
I too have experience with induction heating at a former job. One 5KW machine and one 15KW machine, both using RF (400KHz). I am aware that there are 60Hz machines also.
I would like to see your experiments on a CD and an induction machine.
Firsly, good on KBK for conducting an actual experiment. It's good to see that his inquisitive mind is ticking over and looking for answers.
On to the subject of the thread. I will concede that the magnetic field from KBK's de-magger may generate some heat in the metal layer of the CD. While aluminium is not magnetizable it would certainly develop eddy currents in the presence of an alternating magnetic field. I agree that a powerful enough magnetic field could actually damage the CD also.
Unfortunately for all of those that believe in this type of treatment or others, light, lasers, permanent magnets bringing about an improvement in the sound reproduced from a CD, it simply cannot be true.
As others have pointed out in this thread, the information being read off the CD by the laser pickup consists of binary logic states. These are not negotiable. The next stage is buffering/error correction then the logic states are output to the D to A by an oscillator/clock. Obviously this is a very simplified illustration. Fortunately, the engineers at Phillips did a very thorough job on the CD format and data stream and , given the limited technology of the day, produced a system with robust error correction and very stable characteristics for reproducing the information contained in the pits and lands on the disc.
I don't care what anyone says, the information on the disc is unalterable. If any of these treatments are going to "improve" the quality of the decoded audio signal, an improvement in the level of error correction will be observed following the treatment. If no reduction in error correction can be measured, then the logic states being read off the disc are identical to the ones before the treatment. Only a person who would deny the actual mechanical/electronic functions of the CD playback system could argue that the post-treatment disc represented any 'improvement' or 'difference' in the sound that was being reproduced.
Failing a CD player that can have the error correction level tapped off for measurement, the next best thing would be to have a DBT of treated vs non-treated discs. This is an experiment that could be carried out by anyone.
Here's how I will conduct my experiment. I will purchase two identical discs from the local discount store. I'll shoot for a decent classical recording. I have access to a professional handheld demagger that I used to use to demag tape heads with so that should provide a decent field. I will treat one disc and then hand both of them to my wife who will select which one to play first. Once have assessed the sound I'll get her to change the discs and evaluate that one. Listening will be via a set of headphones so as to eliminate any problems with the room, speakers, my position or barking dogs.
I will post the results in this thread.
BTW, Jan, I have you on ignore so I'll be spared any of your output on this or any other subject.
Stephen once told me it was extremely rude to tell someone they were on your "ignore" list.
But there are a few of you who don't want to see any dissenting opinion. It does make life easier.
Not in our world maybe, but it's definitely "negotiable" in the fantasy world some people live in.
Ah, but what if one CD was closer to the check-out cash register than the other, or closer to the delivery truck's engine etc? I promise you that the believers will grasp at any straw they can to discredit your test. Unless of course your test agrees with their beliefs! In that case you could use the sloppiest methods and they'll still agree with your findings. It's a lose-lose for everyone except the sellers of demagnetizers.
--Ethan
I agree with what you're saying Ethan. I know that whatever I hear in my subjective tests will be questioned or rejected if it does not comply with the outcome desired by tweak defenders.
However, my inquiring mind has come up with an additional phase to the testing. I will rip both of the discs into uncompressed digital files and then use the professional audio software that I have at my disposal to compare the two tracks.
This comparison can be done microscopically if necessary. I think this test has the added benefit of not only being a measurement but also an observation. I am off to the discount store at lunch time to get my discs
It will be interesting to see how the tweakers deal with the outcome if it proves, as I think it will, that there are no perceptible, measurable or observable differences in the source material.
I'd like to thank KBK for kicking off the idea for this test especially as we have his subjective results on record.
P.S I have access to an extremely powerful de-magnetizer that I will employ if the first tests with the hand held device are inconclusive.
Partially related:
If CD is good enough as is, why do you suppose JVC and Universal Music Japan would be inventing SHM CD's?
I mean, JVC is, like, totally in the Pioneer realm, you know?
Why would JVC want to start thinking that the quality of the plastic should matter, since we already have perfect sound forever?
Has JVC been turned to the dark side?
Maybe JVC is now part of the tweak conspiracy.
Some basic problems for those who still maintain bits are bits:
Exhibit no. 1: The Nespa device proves that bits are not bits, since the geometry of the bits can be changed, even if to a very small degree, and demonstrates the importance of the precise "beginning" and "end" of the microscopic pits. Obviously, extremely minute shifts in the geometry of the pits changes the sound. Thus, bits ain't bits.
Number 2, products such as Codename Turquoise (blush) that cut back on stray scattered light inside the player means that the laser is (normally) picking up and interpreting background light as "real signal." Thus, the error corection routines are not perfect, only correcting certain types of errors and ignoring some others. Again, bits are not bits.
No. 3: The Intelligent Chip (as well as a host of CD cleaners and surface enhancers) proves that the CD polycarbonate layer is critical to the sound - how much light scattering takes place in the relatively unclear polycarbonate (only 90% transparent). The physical pits on the CD don't change, but the sound does. Voila, bits are not bits.
Whaddya got without the tweaks? Well, you got a congealed, thin, threadbare, tinny, grainy, hollow, unnatural, uninteresting, compressed and irritating sounding CD.
I have purchased the CDs
Buddha, geoff all will be revealed when the CD's are ripped and the waveforms compared. Not even the most ardent tweaker will be able to dispute what is in front of their eyes.
This experiment will compare apples with apples, pure and simple.
Maybe it isn't apples we want to compare.
Testing is great. The more the merrier!
I would be interested in your listening tests, foremost.
Ripping would change the data because of the multiple readings that occur to correct errors. The ripping process would "fix" the very thing that was supposed to be under test. So to make the experiment a true apples to apples at the very least you'd have to rip at 1X with no re-reading of the data that might correct errors.
I will take the ripping speed into account, thanks for the tip
. . .and you'd also want to use a ripping program that allowed you to turn off error correction which I implied, but failed to say directly.
Fresh:
There is also variability in the given mechanism's ability to do a perfect read from one read to the next. Even on the same disk and same machine.
In this case the argument is that the timing of the read is corrected and 'naturalized' so it is more in line with the idealized/projected state of a read. In all different gear that is out there, this will vary from machine to machine. There may or may not be a correlating change in the error rate. That is to be determined with a complete and correct test regimen.
It is nice of you to attempt to see if this situation is true, but as Robert said in the opening act of this month's rag, Leveler's aren't really suited to attempting to advance the 'state of the art' as they do not or will not allow themselves to posses the necessary tools to make a broadband informed test of much of anything in the world of 'cutting edge' audio.
Your test bed and test set is not complete with respect to the number of variables that have been considered. Some of the known variables are not covered in your 'system' in use here for this test due to your direct lack of acceptance of their existence.
This reminds me of how 'negative energy' was dropped by the desire to maintain the status and position of the 'status quo' back in Dirac's time when he came up with this fundamental point. The math, the very proposition, the conclusions on the known and suspected phenomena, all of it was thrown out by the levelers of physics (of the 20's and 30's), who, in their dangerous and limited intellect desired to see nothing of their created edifice damaged or changed. This has caused a lopsided view of quantum and Einsteinian physics to prevail since that time. Half the fudge factors that are used to day in formulae are due to this kind of crap brought about by levelers being unaware of this weakness and crutch in their very psychological makeup. Bulls in a Physics China Shop.
This is exactly why I have always said that if someone was to be allowed to obtain a degree in physics or engineering that they MUST take at LEAST two basic courses in psychology, minimum. And to do well in them. Otherwise, no degree. There are far too many levelers in the system, it is making a damned big mess; it is seriously degrading the forward progress of mankind.
That is about as nice as it can be said.
Very simple - they want to sell you the same music you already bought a second time. And a third and fourth time if possible.
--Ethan
Yes, that's the only possible answer!
CD really is already perfect sound, forever.
As an engineer (cough, cough) I would think you would use more scientific terms than "background light" and "real signal" to prove your point. The psychobable you claim as
"only correcting certain types of errors and ignoring some others" is so presumptious it completely exposes you as the "mad scientist" that you are, or rather claim to be.
It is! As PROVEN here:
http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/index.html
Now, you may not like the proof. Many believers don't like it. But that's not my problem.
Dude, some day I'll get you here and we'll A/B hi-res audio downgraded to 16/44 together. My proverbial $100 sez you won't be able to pick which is which. Hell, I bet you won't be able to pick out hi-res audio from a 256 kbps MP3 file either.
--Ethan
Ethan, I can hear wire.
So, just how low does the sampling have to get before you can hear it?
Heck with 256, let's get 'er down to 128 or 64 kps.
Just how bad does it have to be for Ethan to hear it is what I wanna know!
Frank, how does the error correction circuit distinquish between an actual musical bit and one from a scattered source from somewhere else on the CD itself (or elsewhere? Does it go by the fewest number of bits, comparison, or some other way? How does the circuitry know which is most accurate?
You'll never know until you and I get together in person and test this stuff.
Actually, do you have a computer and audio editing software etc to test this stuff for yourself?
--Ethan
Hi Buddha,
That test is the Moran-Meyer study that is completely useless. For one thing, the test totally ignores medical science in that "Habituation to Stimuli" skews the results when more than 3-4 ABs are performed per session.
It is amazing how some either ignore science or pick and choose what science to believe.
Take care Buddha.
Ethan-
That's quite ridiculous. When I was selling audio I regularly had skeptical customers put me to the test blind and my results and what they heard knowing which was which was enough to convince nearly all of them. Plus when customers auditioned headphones using my iPod (which had exclusively Apple loss less files) they consistently commented how much better it sounded then their unit and asked why. When I asked them how they had encoded their files most of them had just installed iTunes and went with the default settings so I then explained lossy compression vs. loss less. Many of them re-encoded their music and called to thank me.
I'd prefer to do it at your place, and I'll bring the champagne.
I don't when I'll be back east again, but I would love to hook up and listen.
I'd really like to meet Michigan, too.
Well, that's just not possible. You can't have done that!
Inconceivable!
A troll fires a blank. You wear the dunce cap for the day.
I think that's exactly what Geoff should answer to.
BTW, it's not "musical bits" It's bits...period. I know you probably didn't mean it as such but nonetheless I want to make a point that the only thing that matters is that the "data" is read from the pits of the disc. Stray light being confused with laser light is complete hogwash.
I'd like to hear Geoff's "scientific" explanation to the question. Far be it from me, an amateur, to explain how someone else's creation works........for them.
"Trolls can be very demanding and snippy." - old audiophile saying
Don't be so hard on yourself!
Geoff, getting Frank S and you on the same thread is an opportunity, actually.
Ask him what he would require to be convinced of your claim!
After all, new ideas carry the burden of 'proof' when it comes to changing paradigms.
How did you come upon the ideas you mention?
How did you figure out how they work?
Frank S is an engineer, so he should be able to follow you if you start with simple principles!
(Absolutely no flame content, I'd like to see the discussion.)
Here's what you had to say about the disc you treated KBK.
Now in your last post its..
and
So the effects that you waxed lyrical about in your original post could vary significantly enough to make the disc sound even more different nexxt time you play it because of the minute variations in how the machine plays the disc??!!
You're reaching boy.
Also, you're priming the pump to invalidate any findings I make by accusing me of "psychologically" blocking any alteration in the sound because I don't believe there will be any alteration.
HA!
You sound a little fidgety young Kevin. DBT is a scary acronym to the true tweakaholic. Even scarier to the purveyors of tweaks.
Stay tuned, I'll outline my methodology for this experiment shortly
"Absolutely no flame content. I'd like to see the discussion."
Yeah, I'll bet you would. :-)
"Frank is an engineer."
Do tell.
"He should be able to follow you if you start with simple principles!
Indubadably. :-)
"There's no doubt you (Mr. Kait) live in the placebo world and benefit greatly from it. Classy answer BTW."
"Geoff is quite the artful dodger, IMO of course."
"Geoff, just how many light years ahead does one have to be to realize the benefits of the Teleportation tweak?"
"C'mon Geoff, That doesn't answer my question. I figured you could give me a number.....in light years of course."
"Remastered? What happens if you "treat" it for 5 seconds? Does the sound become that of the mastertape?"
ss="small">Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Give me an example of a manufacturer who actually made false claims. You people are constantly accusing manufacturers of all manner of things. Such little gossips!! Ha Ha Ha
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ss="post">
Geoff, Is'nt this your "claim"? Taken from your website.
"The Teleportation Tweak will also improve any video systems in the house, including plasma, HDTV and high end projection systems - better contrast, color saturation and resolution."
Cheerio."
Geoff, To be honest, I didn't expect to get an answer to any of my queries because you have no answer. The mad scientist always ducks and diverts all queries with silly retorts. I find your website and all the testimonials really entertaining, plus the comic book illustrations are a dead giveaway that your products are merely a joke.
Back on topic.
Here's the way I plan to conduct my experiment.
Purpose: The purpose of this experiment is to investigate the reported phenomenon of the audio signal retrieved from a digital compact disc being altered by the effects of heating due to the induction caused by an AC electromagnetic field. The phenomenon is reported to make an audible difference in the quality of the music played back off a CD that has been treated. Furthermore, this alteration is reported to be an improvement over the music quality from an untreated disc.
Method: I will take two identical digital compact discs, one will be treated with an alternating electromagnetic field provided by a hand held demagnetizer. The demagnetizer will be employed in the standard fashion. The demagger will be activated at a distance from the disc. The unit will then be brought up to the disc while rotating it in circles to match the disc diameter. I will pass the demagger around the disk, hovering close to the label side for ten turns to ensure complete coverage and saturation of the metallised layer of the CD. I will continue the rotations as I draw the demagger away from the disc so as to avoid causing any 'bumps' in the treated disc.
I will place the two discs side by side in their jewel cases, label side up then ask my wife to make a mark on both disks. She will draw a symbol on both, taking note of which symbol she draws on the treated disc. The symbols will be on the spindle section of the disc where the metallised layer will not be compromised. Keeping the symbol information to herself, she will close the CD cases and hand them to me.
Listening: I will load the CDs into my player and repeatedly listen to the same track/s off the disks alternately. I will continue to listen until I am convinced of the outcome either way either that or a minimum of three times per disc.
Observing: I will rip the track/s I have listened to onto a PC and then use Adobe Audition to compare the waveforms off each of the CD's. During this phase I will minimise any in-line error correction by the PC or the audio software.
Conclusion: At the conclusion of these tests I will ask my wife which of the symbols on the discs represents the treated and untreated samples. I will publish the results on this forum.
The discs.
The demagnetizer (Han-D-Mag brand)
I said CD quality versus 256 kbps, not the default which I presume is the standard 128 kbps. Big difference! Anyone can hear 128 kbps on most material.
--Ethan
Dude, I would be so totally down for that! I'll pick you up at the airport or whatever else you need.
--Ethan
So just one CD? That should be a real torture test.
Don't you suppose at least a half dozen discs would be a better test?
If you are someone who doesn't hear improvements in most tweaks or this disc and/or your system doesn't reflect the sort of improvements demagnetizing can elicit, what will this actually prove? What are your priorities in reproduced sound? Without knowing those, we have no idea what to expect from your "test" and the results are less important. If Winer, Buddha, ncdrawl, etc. did this same test, I wouldn't care what they reported. You don't seem to be much different IMO.
Haven't you already set yourself up for the no-cebo effect?
How about having a few people do some listening? When Jason auditioned the ART devices, the Shakti room treatments, etc. he did so with an entire room full of audiophiles and took into account their perceptions. If you find no improvement and KBK has, why should we believe you over him?
You are either intentionally or inadvertently setting this up for poor results.
Why not make copies of the discs and send them out to members to audition for themself? It's not a perfect method for numerous reasons it's but a better one than what you've devised.
Why only look for what you think should be the answer? Possibly KBK is not correct about the "why" of the treatment. I suspect May would say there is more to this than what KBK has suggested. Relying only on what you think is happening limits the possible answers to only what you can think of. An answer that doesn't make sense to you is still a possibility.
Actually, no circuitry, including correction circuitry, is perfect or even close.
My apologies, I probably was not clear enough. To clear things up, I used the term "musical" bits to refer to actual bits on the CD that are necessary to the reproduction of music, and random bits that could occur due to erroneous readings, say from reflections from nearby on the CD or from other places if the light beam is not extremely focused. I hope that clears up any confusion. And yes, light can escape from anywhere off the cd including the edges because of the irregular surface. As it rotates, erroneous bits or mistimed bits can easily be produced. In fact, the inner and outer edges are places where the light is also reflected back towards the other edge. Anywhere along the surface light can escape due to the irregularly of the surface.
Take care.
I hope that is 3 times per session. Any more and habituation to stimuli will skew the results, thus your test would be null and void.
Secondly, we need a list of your sound system? Of course we cannot know what the room sounds like, but it is quite possible, especially if full sounding, heavy bass, to mask musical information.
Jan also brings up the point of only one CD? Obviously the test will not prove anything as the cd chosen is quite critical. For instance when designing and testing my preamps, I started with just a few, but increased that number over time and testing to using dozens of CDs and selections. Why?
Because at first the preamp sounded perfect, with no one being able to tell the difference if my preamp was in or out of the system. Then I found a new CD/song that exposed slight flaws in my preamplifier. So I had to make a slight adjust to my preamplifiers, so I again could not tell if the preamp was in the system or out. In otherwards, total transparency. I also had to go back and test my previous CDs to make sure my preamp could play those properly. Now I have dozens of CDs/songs that I use for testing.
In conclusion, your test might be interesting, but I hope you do not consider the results conclusive or proof.
Hey, I think interconnects sound different.
I guess you disagree. Leveller.
You cared enough to stalk the thread and make yourself look like a diapered idiot, though.
Sit back and enjoy someone being curious enough to try things out. He's actually going the extra mile, not you. You already know it makes a difference, despite not having tried it for yourself.
Here's Jan's level of interest, after 23 years of CD's being around:
"Thanks for the report, KBK. Interesting stuff. I've been looking for my old bulk eraser but haven't found the right box of junk yet."
Wow, exciting, Jan.
Here someone else is going to the effort you won't and you want to bitch him out.
Of course, if it works, he's one of you, even though you couldn't care to try it yourself (you know it must work, because your tweak superiors say it is so - talk about dogmatic!) If he doesn't hear it, he's one of those 'levellers.'
It's win win for ya, Jan!
You either get a new BFF or you get to add to your list of people who think you are an angry dope.
I know you guys have a history of "bad blood" but I think you have much more entertaining responses than J.V. His absolute hatred toward certain members is borderline scary.
Anyway, I agree, if someone is going to take the time to perform a test, let them go for it before you attack them.
Buddha, guess what ... ROT ... nahhh, you ain't funny.
What about a third CD that you know isn't de-magnetized as a control to compare to the other two?
"Borderline scary"?!
How about real time scary?!
How about when one member posts another's personal information and some stuff that's just plain made up? How about when one member Googles another member's personal information and uses GoogleEarth to look into their yard then complains he can't look into the house?
How about when a correction made is met with an insult?
How about when anything one member says is taken out of context and then insulted?
How about we run another thread into the ground by turning this into a personal diatribe?
FS, get a grip on what friggin' scary really is.
Now, I say this isn't a good test and this is an "attack"?!
See? You're wrong, there's obviously bad blood between me and you too. Why, because you believe one thing and I tend to believe another.
Didn't someone post in an AWSI that we are all right?
Don't be such a leveller, man.
I do appreciate your honesty about why you declare bad blood with him " because you believe one thing and I tend to believe another."
Hi Buddha,
Just a friendly comment, as you probably did not mean it, but you responded to me. Actually Jan made the quote in your post.
Take care my friend.
I agree with your analysis, and if you could see inside of the CD player during play, you would see it's entirely filled with bright scattered laser light. And going one step further the photodetector only needs to see 70% of full reflected light signal (off the refective LAND portion of the physical data) to accept it as "real signal." Thus, when background scattered light exceeding that threshold of 70% is detected by the photodetector - voila! bad data. The Reed Solomon stuff was used to account for things like minor scratches and fingerprints (that produce bursty errors) and was not designed for the scattered light problem (which noone knew/knows about) which is quite smooth and continuous. Reed Solomon seemed like a real good idea at the time and isn't completely useless but things have moved on.
So the Reed Solomon system is inadequate for the task?
The scattered light "problem" is perhaps another invention of the tweak creation industry. If as geoff_kait espouses, the scatterd laser light has to reach a 70% plus value to be counted as actual data how does it do this? How can a laser pickup, designed specifically to receive the laser beam reflected off the disc manage to read a scrap of scattered light? The scattered light would have to be 'on axis' for the photodiode to register it as a valid bit and the very nature of "scattered" light would be that it was not all on axis and travelling in a direction where it could be registered.
On top of that, the Reed Solomon system would likely correct it and the result would be imperceptible.
The Reed Solomon system has also been employed on the DVD, CD-R, CD-RW, Blu Ray and DSL formats. Surely if it was so inadequate, another system would have been developed?
Go fill some more jars with pebbles geoff....
Just to catch up on another couple of entries.
I will be using headphones for my testing, not speakers. There are WAY too many variables in using speakers in an inadequate room (such as mine)
A list of the equipment I am using would be pointless. The treated and non-treated discs will be played in the SAME player, through the SAME amplifier and auditioned through the SAME headphones. Effects as reported by KBK should be more than obvious using this method.
Equally, the discs will be ripped on the same drive into the same machine and assessed in the same application. Like I said before, this is a comparison of apples with apples.
I will limit my auditions to 3 listens to each individual disc, thanks for the advice.
There is no need for a third disc. This is a double blind test. i will not know which disc is the treated one until I have finished all of the processes I laid out in my previous post.
I can see no need for expensive, exclusive or 'special' discs. I say again, the effects reported by KBK should be obvious with any reasonable stereo content.
KBK's findings at this time have not been dismissed by me and I'd be delighted to be able to confirm his findings. For those of you who want to run this experiment off the rails before it is completed, you are promoting your bias and ignorance.
Hopefully, the listening portion of the evaluation will be completed today.
Hi Fresh,
Actually it does not have to be on axis but can be off axis to some extent. A friend of mine did some testing some years ago by installing a disk that had a very small aperature (a gent from Caterpillar made the disk), in essence blocking light except from directly on axis. I was unaware that this change/test when I arrived. Although not a strict scientific test, it was quite interesting to hear the difference when the disk was removed. We repeated the test, but of course I knew what he had done by then. Still, very interesting.
A similar test involves treating the CD surface with cd treatment. The treatment smooths the surface, thus less extraneous off axis "bursts" and produces a similar result.
Take care.
Pages