As a cultural observation, how did the term "skeptic" morph into one who knee-jerk conclusively denies?

A skeptic is a person who questions the validity of something purportedto be factual. This necessarily implies investigating, considering, reasoning, learning; that is, curious enough to question and not just accept.

I'm not picking on you, Geoff. You are using the term as it commonly is used in modern parlance.

I think this misuse of the term is emblematic of our current intolerance of a discussion of ideas. For many people the other guy is either right or wrong - and you shouldn't listen to and can't learn from someone is "wrong." Unfortunate.

I happen to think Optrix is one of the lesser treatments. I never had much luck with it, myself. There are many more effective CD treatments that should give very obvious results sonically.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

so long as everyone is being respectful(and we all are) I don't see the problem? Putting the kibosh on conversations because they don't "go anywhere" is sort of a dangerous road to take. some of us just enjoy the conversation, though we know DaDa is hopeless. He knows that too, which makes his situation humor act all the more hilarious.

are not immune to expectation Bias.

hell, they are probably MORE prone to it.

Actually, the husband and wife PhD reviewers over at 6 Moons are exceptionally experienced listeners and trained to test these sorts of things (devices that ought not to work or that seem improbable).

Besides, wouldn't the expectation be for these devices NOT to work? I.e., The Negative Expectation Bias, positive expectation bias' ugly sibling. Furthermore, recall from the Photon Cannons review the two PhDs mentioned they had previously tested the Intelligent Chip with negative results. So there would be no reason for them to expect positive results when they tested it again - on the contrary.

Cheerio

Geoff Kait,
Maraschino Dramatica

This brings up the broader question: PhDs? And if so, in what? From where?

They don't appear to have any credentials, have never published any papers in any English or Dutch journal, and have only written on Windows.

They also don't write like someone in academia (no references or endnotes, broad assertions, no discussion of earlier hypotheses of why burned CDs sound different - such as jitter, etc.)

Internet degrees perhaps?

Such as?

And why/how do they make any difference?

I have also used Auric Illuminator (I love the name). It similarly is good for cleaning up a scratched or grubby CD, but doesn't do anything beyond this.

And since you seem to have forgotten my earlier question:

If the data is accurately retrieved, what "other errors" can there be that "the designers were unaware of or perhaps felt were inconsequential?"

Especially since this appears to be the only active thread on this revamped forum. :(

Who says they are in academia? Most PhDs are actually not in academia. Do you really believe all PhDs write in the same style; this is a hobby not a peer reviewed journal, for cryin' out loud. Hel-loooo! Besides, The reviewers acknowledge at the end of the Photon Cannons article they are simply audio hobbyists, so I wouldn't expect them to have PhDs in data communications theory or somesuch thing nor do they put on airs of having such. I think the two reviewers should be commended for thoroughness and investigating something they had previously dismissd.

If you don;t mind my saying so too much, you seem to be suggesting that all reviewers of all magazines be investigated, or are you only tageting PhDs? That might be a rather large can of worms. :-)

Perhaps we can get NASA or NIST to investigate. :-)

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Personally, I think arguing by credential pointless. What matters, surely, what people say and how they support it? This is why as a matter of policy, we do not list Stereophile's reviewers' academic qualifications in the magazine. We have no fewer than 5 PhDs in the team but that is not why I recruited them.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I wasn't referring to jitter, but now that you mention it, jitter might explain a lot. It might explain the Nespa, why some metals or metal alloys make better CDs, and things like that. N'est pas?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

So.

If we take two transports, one with vibration isolation, one without, and saved them both to files on a computer, and then reproduce them?

Do you think "vibration isolation" will make a difference then?

What will it mean if a "cmp f1 f2" shows that the files are bitwise identical?

Let me ask you a question first. Do you think that a CD transport should sound different, i.e the sound coming out of the speakers, with vibration isolation compared to the case without it?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

You are missing the point. You raised the claim the are doctors, apparently as an appeal to authority.

This aroused my curiosity. I did some checking and find no credentials, no records of them, no articles in peer reviewed journals, no indications of a PhD between them.

When I refer to academia, I am not referring to "style." Here is what I wrote: "They also don't write like someone in academia (no references or endnotes, broad assertions, no discussion of earlier hypotheses of why burned CDs sound different - such as jitter, etc.)"

I do not take the position that reviewers must have technical backgrounds. However, if someone brings up an academic title I then want to know what it is and why it is relevant.

Geoff, why not answer the question?

You asserted there are "other errors" that "the designers were unaware of or perhaps felt were inconsequential."

What are these errors?

(Jitter is a non-issue. See, e.g., the above thread ncdrawl referenced.)

And again, you state "There are many more effective CD treatments that should give very obvious results sonically."

Such as?

And why/how do they make any difference?

...................

Dunno why they make a difference, not sure it would be correct to assume they all operate on the same idea. See link below to CD treatment survey.

Strange, you're the only one I've ever heard of that didn't get results with Auric Illuminator. Oh, well, I guess you're the exception that proves the rule.

Here a link for anyone interested to the survey of various CD treatments: Lotions Eleven. Well, actually 22.

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue26/cjdiaries.htm

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

If I recall correctly, there are a number of different methods of operation among the host of CD treatments, and some use more than one. These methods include, but are probably not limited to, removal of mold release compound, anti-static agent, one (Mapleshade Microsmooth) polishes the polycarbonate surface ond one (Nanotech 8500) fills in micro surface imperfections with nanoparticles. My top picks are the new Jena Labs gel, Auric Illuminator gel (revised edition), Nanotech and Xtreme AV's Liquid resolution. Cannot beat them with a stick.

See link to Clark J.'s article at Postive Feedback Online surveying a raft of CD treatments that I posted earlier today.

Cheerio

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

That should be geoffs new moniker :-)

Good one. From the cheap seats even. :-)

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

yo, geoff is clever
cheap shots aren't little
he clock you in the face
fill your mouth with spittle

you say your speaker
got a problem with the treble
he fix it right up
with a magic pebble

..........................

I Stumbled across a post (excerpt below) over on Randi's JREF dated Nov. 2007 by Pyrts (thinker). The poster uses an attractive elk avitar. :-)

"The latest commentary featured an email exchange between Matt Schaffner and Geoff Kait, where Kait proudly says the research would take more than two years to understand and points Gentle Reader to research on his website by "Dr. Marja Vanderloo & Dr. Henk Boot."

Well, in THIS case, Gentle Reader is a very real PhD student and knows the educational system. I did the first thing any PhD student does -- checked their credentials. They've published/copublished NO papers in English and nothing in any journal that was listed in the major journal archives. Suspecting that those might be Dutch surnames, I did a google search for Dutch language publications.

They are indeed Dutch, he misspells the names on his website (hers is Van der Loo... and that's a rather important name, implying she comes from a noble family), but the only thing they've written or published is books on Windows (a server setup book, a troubleshooting book.) I see a PDF that deals with databases, but it doesn't appear to have been published in any standard or electronic journal. In the academic world, nothing appears even when scholarly publications in Dutch are searched.

The last several times I've seen this sort of thing, the "scholars" had purchased their PhD's... not the way I am, by taking years of classes and throwing truckloads of money at a university, but by buying a title.

So... a look at their paper on 6moons (http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/p...oncannons.html).

I am assuming the statements that it's written for public consumption, that they had a translator proofreading the thing and editing it. Even so, there are a number of things that scream "degree mill.""

PS I'm feeling very optimistic that your persistence will eventually pay off and you will get to the bottom of this thing. :-)

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

Thanks for the links to the CD lotions. Fun reading.

Auric Illuminator works in that it makes problematic CDs work better. It's also quite easy to use.

It wasn't me on Randi's site. Yucky bunch that I wouldn't want to hang out with. Plus, I would never claim to have expertise in information science; I would be found out very quickly.

The poster put in a lot more effort than I did. I just ran some quick searches wondering who these people are and why the declare themselves as doctors. If they are I'm sure it has nothing to do with audio.

I am honestly curious as to your assertion that there are "other errors" that "the designers were unaware of or perhaps felt were inconsequential?"

Is there anything behind this statement? I am assuming not at this point.

Some say it's everything.

http://www.sixmoons.com/audioreviews/bootstrap/1.jpg

RG

...................

If the CD treatments work, if the Nespa works, if the Intelligent Chip works and if vibration isolation of CD transport works then there must be something that the designers were (are) unaware of. The only mystery is what.

As for the PhDs from Netherlands, there are a lot of PhDs who are audio reviewers, JA already mentioned he's got a bunch working for him. I'm not positive, but I kinda doubt any of their degrees are in audio, either. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

"Auric Illuminator works in that it makes problematic CDs work better. It's also quite easy to use."

That might well be true, but you seem to be discounting the mountain of evidence that suggests AI changes the sound of a perfectly good, undamaged disc. I.e., there must be something not working 100% when the untreated disc is played. Now, if you'd like me to list the reasons why some people do not get results with certain tweaks, I'd be more than happy to oblige. :-)

Got it. You are unaware of "other errors." You are just guessing and asserting.

Yes, but they do not declare themselves as "doctor" or a PhD. The Dutch reviewers do. They declare it relevant. So what PhD, from where? I posit it is fluff, an erroneous appeal to authority.

There isn't a "mountain of evidence." Rather there are anecdotal reports. A story a datum does not make.

It would be interesting to learn how many actually routinely use a CD treatment. Even among audiophiles my guess the percentage is pretty low. I know many that have tried, but none that continue to use any such product. If they were clearly effective we would all be using them.

No, this is a idiomatic misnomer. The exception disproves the rule; contradictory data requires the hypothesis to be rejected.

Modern DACs are highly resistant to jitter, modern transports have superb error correction ability. There simply is nothing to "fix."

geoffkait wrote:
If the CD treatments work, if the Nespa works, if the Intelligent Chip works and if vibration isolation of CD transport works then there must be something that the designers were (are) unaware of. The only mystery is what.

Elk wrote: Got it. You are unaware of "other errors." You are just guessing and asserting.

>Only if you say so. :-)

Quote:
As for the PhDs from Netherlands, there are a lot of PhDs who are audio reviewers, JA already mentioned he's got a bunch working for him.

Elk wrote:
Yes, but they do not declare themselves as "doctor" or a PhD. The Dutch reviewers do. They declare it relevant. So what PhD, from where? I posit it is fluff, an erroneous appeal to authority.

>It's a personal preference whether to use Dr. of PhD with one's name. You're reading too much into it. I suppose if the Dutch reviewers had reported the Nespa and the Intellichip didn't work you'd be all for the use of PhD.

There's also Doc Gaw at Enjoy the Music and of course Dr. Harvey "Gizmo" Rosenberg (RIP), who actually had a degree in Gizmology from the American University of Gizmology (which he created). Hmmm....one wonders if Dr. Sardonicus at Positive Feedback is a real doctor.

Quote:
That might well be true, but you seem to be discounting the mountain of evidence that suggests AI changes the sound of a perfectly good, undamaged disc.

Elk wrote:
There isn't a "mountain of evidence." Rather there are anecdotal reports. A story a datum does not make.

>Methinks you are confusing evidence with proof. The thousands of audiophiles, including many reviewers, who have had positive results with CD treatments and isolating the CD transport outweigh a few outliers who didn't get positive results. Face the facts.

Elk wrote:
It would be interesting to learn how many actually routinely use a CD treatment. Even among audiophiles my guess the percentage is pretty low. I know many that have tried, but none that continue to use any such product. If they were clearly effective we would all be using them.

>The percentage of audiophiles who use CD treatments is irrelevant as to whether they work or not. Any more than the percentage of audiophiles who use vibration isolation. Geez. There are any number of reasons why a person might chose not to use a CD treatment any longer - he used it up and moved on to other things, he got bored, he was tired of buffing, blah blah. In any case, there's no evidence the people you know gave up because the treatments didn't work, only your speculation.

Quote:
Oh, well, I guess you're the exception that proves the rule.

Elk wrote:
No, this is a idiomatic misnomer. The exception disproves the rule; contradictory data requires the hypothesis to be rejected.

>Negative results are outliers, nothing more, not really even evidence that amounts to a hill of beans. There will always be some folks who get negative results with anything in audioland, from speaker cables to power cords to room treatments to CD treatments, you name it. Didn't you know that? In any case, you certainly can't generalize from your one or two little efforts to claim that all CD treatments don't work. Get real! Data, if available, can be weighed as evidence of something, perhaps, but not necessarily *proof* that the sound will be improved by the device. Recall the very low THD amps of the 70s that measured very well but sounded terrible. So, even Data can be unreliable and overrated.

Elk Wrote:
Modern DACs are highly resistant to jitter, modern transports have superb error correction ability. There simply is nothing to "fix."

>The overwhelming evidence, which you continue to ignore or minimize, contradicts your contention that there's nothing to fix.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machismo Dynamica

Overwhelming, eh?
I can't see a bit of it.
Now isn't that strange?

Wretched Poetry
There's as much evidence there.
And that's not worth much.

Yup, like Elk, you've turned a blind eye to any evidence that contradicts your (antiquated) preconceptions. How convenient.

Geoff Kait
Marachino Dynamica

Jeff are you by any chance a distant relative of P.T. Barnum?

I guess there is that chance. Are you related to Pee Wee Herman?

G. C. Kait
Machina Dynamica

You've shown me no evidence.

Your statement is false and defamatory.

Not dispositive one way or the other, but hardly irrelevant.

If CD treatments make substantial, audible improvements most would use them. They are cheap, easy, and usually one time only.

Similar to adjusting tire pressure on a race car - easy and cheap - although hardly one time. :)

Since it works everyone does it, from road racing courses to drag strips.

And this thing that needs fixing is . . .?

It is fixed how . . . ?

geoffkait wrote:
The percentage of audiophiles who use CD treatments is irrelevant as to whether they work or not.

Elk wrote:
Not dispositive one way or the other, but hardly irrelevant.

If CD treatments make substantial, audible improvements most would use them. They are cheap, easy, and usually one time only.

.................

Well, of course, CD treatments DO make substantial audible improvements. Because you did not get results (unlike nearly everyone else) undoubtedly means there's something wrong somewhere, if you know what I mean. Besides, most audiophiles never heard of Auric Illuminator or Optrix, let alone Nanotech 8500, Jena Labs and Liquid Resolution. Did I already mention that Auric Illuminator and the Nordost Anti-static Spray are Stereophile Recommended CD treatments? Hel-loooo! Earth to Elk!

Elk wrote:
Similar to adjusting tire pressure on a race car - easy and cheap - although hardly one time. :)

Since it works everyone does it, from road racing courses to drag strips.

...........................

Adjusting tire pressure on ANY car is a good idea, not only race cars, but how many people do that? Either people haven't gotten the AAA memo about tire pressure or they simply don't care. So, you're right, it is similar to CD treatments, just not the way you were thinking.

Quote:
The overwhelming evidence, which you continue to ignore or minimize, contradicts your contention that there's nothing to fix.

Elk wrote:
And this thing that needs fixing is . . .?

It is fixed how . . . ?

................................

I think we covered this a number of times already, no?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

And the citation for "unlike nearly everyone else" is?

Sorry. I assumed that you would know what I was referring to.

On a race car or motorcycle, one adjusts specific tire pressures - even on a per tire basis - to improve performance.

It is simple, cheap and effective. Thus, everyone does it.

Unlike CD treatments which are merely simple and cheap.

Looks like a Mexican standoff to me. The heart of the CD treatment debate is that you did not get results with Auric Illuminator -- a product that received positive reviews in the major audio magazines and that's recommended by most audiophile magazines, including Stereophile. Your refusal to discount your own negative results with Auric Illuminator puts you in the rather awkward position of claiming everyone else is either hearing things, under the spell of expectation bias, experiencing the placebo effect, or abducted by aliens.

Now, seriously, don't you think there might be a chance that your test was flawed?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

I see, now could you cite some evidence? I can find you reviews of homeopathic medicine, naturopathic medicine, chiropractic, santeria, etc, all of which are enthusiastic and positive.

I can even find you web pages and a book or two that refers to the fact that the moon is made of green cheese.

I don't believe those, either.

Do you?

The evidence is all around you, if you would look. Of course you won't look, but I can certainly understand your reluctance to look since it would undermine your long standing ridiculous anti-tweak crusade. You might as well say because there's no proof UFOs exist anyone who believes in CD treatments must also believe in UFOs. There's nothing quite so unscientific as a skeptic who won't investigate the evidence.

Would it be a fair statement that you do not believe the Holocost occurred? After all, you were not there.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dogmatica

No, it's not "all around me", it's not even visible. You're making the assertions, it is encumbent on you to introduce the evidence in a testable, verifiable fashion. Citing a web site that offers no way to reproduce the results is exactly like citing "The Time Cube" in order to argue for a 4-cornered earth.

You have cited no evidence, and the claim that it is "all around you" is simply a flat-out lie.

You have nothing.

Your sheer, offensive dishonesty in attempting to accuse me of being a holocaust denier because I reject your quack science is nothing more or less than a deliberately dishonest, completely false personal attack

What the heck are you going on about, now? Are you channeling Lee J. Cobb in 12 Angry Men or something? If positive reviews (of CD treatments in general and Auric Illuminator in particular) in all of the audio magazines and testimony by a raft of advanced audiophiles on all audio forums over the last 15 or 20 years is not evidence enough for you that there is something going on then, if you don't mind my saying so too much, you're living in a world of make-believe. Stereophile Magazine even has Auric Illuminator on its Recommended Components list. Wake up and smell the coffee!

PS - You never did answer my question. Do you think vibration isolation of the CD transport will improve the sound? Not to late to answer (instead of ducking and running).

"But you can't prove it!!" - Lee J. Cobb

"An ordinary man has no means of deliverance." - Wm Burroughs

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Advanced Audio Concepts

You, sir, are scum of the earth.

You ran out of intelligent arguments a long time ago. It's no surprise you resort to name calling. By the way, Earth should be capitalized.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

You can defame people, you can prevaricate, you can duck, you can weave, but you can't provide a single bit of testable, verifiable evidence for any of your claims from the issue of "cleaner ones and zeros" to your insinuation about holocaust denial.

You have nothing but a willingness to defame your moral and ethical superiors.

Oh, put a sock in it. Frankly I'm not interested in what you think. You have been reduced to name calling and pseudo hurt feelings. Same old phoney baloney jj. You still refuse to answer my question regarding isolating the CD transport. You are a moral, ethical and intellectual shambles. Shame on you.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

PhD's are fine, but in my opinion, they are not the end all..be all in audio. Integrity and objectivity out-weigh a piece of paper in my opinion.

Mark Evans

I agree, As I said, I didn't recruit any of my reviewing team because they had a PhD.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Paper credentials are seldom as useful in the real world as experience and common sense...NY is full of waiters with advanced degrees and as is clearly evident in the teaching profession, the paper does not matter when compared to results.

JJ,

Since I'm not in the digital field, I asked some people in the computer industry.

One said that computer data is sent and rechecked until the error is zero in the bitstream, and then the data is accepted. But the CD played does not have that luxury and is corrected as best it can on-the-fly.

If my understanding is correct of the above, does this cause any audible effects reported by some audiophiles?

Another question: How does anyone know what bits are on the CD, when the only data that comes out is after the CD is read and error-corrected, i.e. what if the errors and corrections both combine to produce an incorrect reporting of 'no errors' (if that is possible)?

Nova Physics' Memory Player uses a unique method of reading the data on the disc that supposedly results in better sound. Their explanation for the Memory Player's operation is provided on their web site at:

http://www.novaphysicsgroup.com/Page2.html

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Advanced Audio Concepts

Your false accusation constitutes punitive defamation.

The CD has a huge amount of redundancy built into the format. While there is no way to reread in real time in the more primitive players, in fact it is possible to measure the error in CD playback (meaning errors that make it through the error correction phases), and such errors are extremely rare. What's more, such errors, when they do occur, are rarely subtle nor hard to detect audibly.

A bit error is not, in general, a subtle sound.

Simply put, a transport that can't read an undamaged CD is broken. You shouldn't get subtle effects out of it, either, that would require a remarkable level of "almost broken" that defies probability.

And, a DAC that actually allows jitter though to the reconstruction clock is just as broken.

Such equipment may exist, however, any vibration effects in a transport that cause the DAC to error (even subtly) suggests that there are not only 1, but 2 bits of equipment that have yet to incorporate techniques known in the 1950's in the telecom industry.