Just to keep some perspective on this, how about the Stereophile folk who heard this at MF's weighing in on Ethan's files? You don't have to say which is which. Just whether what you are hearing on these files is representative of what you heard at MF's with the actually recording. That way we can have a bit more of an idea just how representative these files are to the real deal.

OK?

Quote:

Quote:
I was already first. Jan, you're just trying to act tough while you run and hide from my questions.

The above is why so many high end ideologists fear DBTs with such loathing. They've been using their eyes for a crutch so long that their ears have lost too much of their natural sensitivity to hear small differences well.

Over use of the eyes as a crutch causes the fear that keeps them from doing DBTs on their own, which is now so easy that a child can do it.

Well, there you have it, why I won't get serious about this thread.

OK Jan, you've put yourself out of this thread.

You've asked to be treated like you are irrelevant, and so you are.

I won't take anything you write seriously.

That includes your challenges.

You're out of the game, Jan. If you keep hanging around, you're just asking for abuse.

Time to go, Jan.

Quote:
Just to keep some perspective on this, how about the Stereophile folk who heard this at MF's weighing in on Ethan's files? You don't have to say which is which. Just whether what you are hearing on these files is representative of what you heard at MF's with the actually recording. That way we can have a bit more of an idea just how representative these files are to the real deal.

OK?

If I may, and without speaking for anyone else, in my ever-so-humble opinion, Ethan's files are most definitely NOT "representative" of a live demo of the Furutech Demag unit. I demoed the unit more recently than Stephan wrote about it, and the difference is not represented by Ethan's files. As I just added in my recently edited post to Ethan, his WAV files are not even representative of MF's original AIFF's. The overall quality of Ethan's snippets is just "lousier", to use a technical term. Although I did find differences, I didn't find any great differences between his four files. It was not the experience I had on my first listen to the two AIFF's, let alone the experience I had demoing the Furutech.

Ethan's snippets were just something he cobbled together to try to trip me up, so I don't know what he did to them, or the many ways they were processed from the originals. They should not be used as a reference test for the Furutech. If people want to hear what it can do, either listen to MF's originals (which are large but can easily be heard on PC or Mac), or as I mentioned, better would be to demo the unit at a local dealer, if possible.

There is a common fallacy, that if a music file remains within the digital realm, you can just do practically anything to it, and it will always look or sound exactly the same at the end of all this 'abuse'. In real life, as with so many simple and convenient "theories" that don't pan out, it just doesn't work that way. Not that I don't wish it were so.

Quote:

If you keep hanging around, you're just asking for abuse.

Time to go, Jan.

Take your own advice, Arnold. You came here recently as a cross-forum bashing DBT troll to bear your ABX cross, and you're already threatening to abuse a long time member with about 3600 more contributions than you? Call me Kreskin, but I don't think you're going to fare so well here, as you do on Hydrogen. I suppose you miss RAO so much, you're here to turn Stereophile into that. If you're looking to abuse high end audiophiles, just go back there. I'm sure you'll get a much warmer reception there.

Quote:

Quote:
I may have misinterpreted the difference between the two channels as a difference between the two samples.

You know, I was wondering about that because I noticed the obvious difference in HF content between the left and right channels.

This points up another severe flaw with vinyl. Now, it could be that the music was actually mixed that way, but it seems more likely to be LP mistracking or some other LP-related flaw.

--Ethan

Ethan, you are making the objectivists look like the gang that couldn't shoot straight!

So, to update:

1) Arny used a stereo recording and compared left to right channel rather than comparing different tracks.

(Tell him that in stereo, the violins are on the...wait...I'll leave it a symphonic mystery for you to measure.)

2) Arny originally heard a difference between the cuts, to a degree that he declared himself "p'd" to <0.05.

3) After realizing his error, he posted that he no longer heard the difference.

4) Then, you and Arny decided to criticise the recording in a new way, by opining about a difference between channels.

5) Ethan finds this to be a 'problem with vinyl.'

6) Ethan and the new Arny, Arny cum lately, can't hear the differences between channels, even though they are quite large and worthy of your criticism.

Ethan, if you can't hear it, you should be crowing about how you can't even hear a 3 dB difference in HF content difference between channels that grows larger with increasing frequency.

You keep trying to turn this into a digital vs. LP flame-fest when, in fact, it was a test to see if differences could be heard.

Measured differences, no less!

And you can't hear them.

Now, you are bitching about the flaws of this LP recording, yet you can't hear the flaw.

What we've now proved is that you are incapable of hearing what Arny measured.

Why on earth are you complaining about yet more that 'can't be heard?'

Heck, Arny cum lately can't hear that channel imbalance, either...well, he could, but now he can't.

Which one of you is Don Knotts and which is Tim Conway?

Quote:

Quote:
MJF wrote:

Ok, EW, how about THIS suggestion: get off your duff and download FreshClip's files already, and stop making excuses that they're impossible to download ... THEN we'll see which of us got this right, and which of us didn't. Or who's full of "crap" and who is not at all so full of that crap stuff.

Do these files have a URL?

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/printthread.php?Board=tweaks&main=61555&type=post

As Jan says, "have at it", Arnold. There are four files, and you have to determine which is the demagnetized one, via subjective listening alone. Do lots of rapid switching, cos that'll really help you good. And put it through that ABX crapware, because I'm sure that won't mask any of its differences. No doubt you can ace this, better than 20/30. You should be able to do p = 0.01, if you put some serious effort into it. Don't forget, I'm rooting for ya!

Quote:
Been meaning to post the 4 Reasons Why people Can't Hear Tweaks or Claim Their Effects are Subtle. So, without further ado, here they are. Enjoy.

The following is from a letter by George Tice to Stereophile responding to a disgruntled recipient of Mr. Tice's Clock. Feel free to substitute for "TPT Clock" a demagnetizer, green pen, red pen, chip, ion blaster, power cord, Shakti stone, quartz crystals or whatever else suits your fancy.

"There are four reasons why someone could not get the full potential from a TPT Clock. They are: 1) You did not follow the directions. 2) There are one or more choke points in your system (a choke point is a component which is significantly below the quality of the rest of the system). 3) Your audio system is not up to the standards by which anything can be accurately judged. 4) Your hearing ability is not as refined as that of other music lovers and audiophiles."

For those interested, the complete exchange can be found on-line in 1991 Stereophile at:

George Tice Responds

~ Cheerio

Something seems missing. You must have read the bowdlerized version, sent to the general public. The complete letter, sent to friends and colleagues, reads:

5) You already "know" it doesn't work.

Quote:
What we've now proved is that you are incapable of hearing what Arny measured.

And of course Ethan is incapable of measuring what Arny heard. You gotta love these boyz. But I know I wouldn't want to be behind them when they are trying to go through a revolving door....

"No, I said PULL! You're not doing it right!"

"No, you gotta PUSH! I can't be PUSHing while you're PULLing!"

"Wait Ethan, I think the problem is, this door is automatic! Watch... let's just not do anything, and it will turn by itself."

"Ok, it isn't automatic. Start pushing."

"No, you're pulling again! Pushing is in the opposite direction, Ethan!".

"No, YOU'RE the one who's supposed to be pushing, you're not doing it right!".

"Can someone measure the slew rate on this door? I swear it must be off!"

"Look, we should have just read the effin' manual, Arny. Because if you look at this diagram, there's the problem right there... this is a standard hinged door. It's not a revolving door, see! "

Quote:
We've tested what you do, and we've conclusively determined that when people can't base their perceptions on sight, but rather only sound, the results are often vastly different. You look at stuff and then you tell us what you perceive based on what you see, as if you were basing it on what you hear.

Uh-huh. I was seeing a computer monitor during the entire test. Which reminds me, when was the last time you had a check up, Mr. Krueger? I don't mean a physical, but a psychological.

Quote:
Please notice that you won't hurt yourself if you stick your finger into your ear, but you will hurt yourself if try to stick your finger into your eye. ;-)

Uh-huh. I guess the question on all our minds is, how many times did you try poking yourself in the eyes and sticking a finger in yourear, before you managed to convince yourself that the former really does hurt? Was it 20 out of 30 times? And could you repeat the test for us skeptics, because I'm not convinced there's a difference?

Quote:
Eye is not ear, and ear is not eye, is it?

Ok children, let's slowwly back away from the old man.... don't make eye contact.

Quote:
If you were as badly confused about tasting as you seem to be confused about hearing, you'd be sticking food in your eye to see if it is good to eat.

Oh, I think I get it. So what you're saying is, I should be sticking food in your eye to see if it is good to eat? Gotcha. Come a little closer, Krueger. I got a hankering for some grilled kebabs, that may have gone bad.

Quote:
That's what your alleged listening tests look like to those of us who know better than to stick food into our eyes to taste it, or judge audio gear by looking at it.

Better to judge audio gear by looking at the spec sheet. Gotcha. Wow, I can't believe how much I'm learnin' from ya, Mr. Krewkur. I guess what your alleged "listening tests", quote unquote, look like to those of us who know better than to brush our teeth with a wire drill, or judge audio by looking at the spec sheet, is the same as it would look to an oneophile watching someone try to judge wines by splashing the various wines on their shirt, and then measuring the depth of the stain to see which wine is better. Speaking of which....

....here's food in your eye, Arny. (clink!)

I like this part:

Quote:
That's what your alleged listening tests look like to those of us who know better than to stick food into our eyes to taste it, or judge audio gear by looking at it.

Those of us who know better, but not who know enough to compare tracks rather than channels.

D'oh!

Those of us who know better know these tracks are not audibly different, even though those of us who know better heard a difference before those of us who know better stopped hearing it after those of us who know better realized that those of us who know better screwed the pooch with the data and now can't hear the gross 'problems' associated with the sound of these tracks.

This has been a killer thread.

It's gotten so bad, they are trying to turn it into a digital vs. analog debate!

One channel is down 3 dB at 10K, and the defect gets bigger with increased frequency - inaudible to an objectivist, but not to an extent he can't mewl about the terrible measurements!

Oy!

They are either deaf to such channel imbalance, or they will have to find a new way to claim their measurements were done wrong, again.

To All Subjectivists-

[sarcasm]
Cast off your subjectivist sins and all will be forgiven. Become an objectivist, it's cheaper and there's no need to pursue "happiness." Because so-called "happiness" can't be scientifically quantified surely it's just an illusion, caused by comb-filtering no doubt.

When are you going to stop "listening" to music and realize the truest and purest way to "enjoy" it is via oscilloscope? It has the added benefit of being cheaper and the SAF* is much higher too.

You should also be enjoying your wine by testing it's chemical composition instead of wasting it by dumping it down your throat. This method has the added benefit of getting rid of the wines unfortunate side effect that many refer to as intoxication.

I also advocate the testing of cars by seeing how fast they can make a piece of toast out of a slice of bread on the engine. There's no need to actually waste ones time driving the damn thing. My 2001 Hyundai Accent does it just as fast as the top of the line BMW 5 series, therefore they must be just as good.
[/sarcasm]

*SAF, or Spouse Acceptance Factor is the more politically correct version of WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor.)

I've added my analysis plots to Arny's HA thread. Note, in particular, the very substantial LF differences. These can't be used to justify any conclusion about the Furutech, given the other ways they can be generated, but I do believe the bass/subbass regime is a more fruitful place to look for differences than the treble or even the midrange.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=71737&view=findpost&p=632794

I don't think the treble difference between the L and R channels necessarily means anything about the distortion on the LP (intrinsic to the format or not). It's far more likely to just be a stereo imaging difference. After all, the drum section *IS* hard panned to the right channel, isn't it? So I strongly disagree with Ethan and Arny on that, assuming I am understanding them correctly.

At the same time, just because differences *do* exist doesn't necessarily mean they're audible. Not all wow is audible, nor flutter, nor jitter. Vinyl has a lot of numeric faults but I think the potential for inaudible wow and flutter is quite real - in which case I don't think it's terribly fair to complain about all wow and flutter, no matter how small, in comparison to CD, at least as far as music listening is concerned. That said, the fact that many records (and turntables) have audible wow and flutter is an important issue.

Actually... even if some of these issues are audible, I wouldn't even agree they are worth caring about. Let's say that the differences identified by that LF plot are audible. So what? If they're attributable to thermal differences, caring about them would mean that I should pay close attention to the temperature of the room, using gloves to hold my LPs vs not, etc. Screw that. I can ABX absolute polarity and I don't give a sh*t about it.

EDIT: There's no bible for how these measurements are made, and I for one am not putting textbook-like rigor into how they are being generated. But I do think they have enough meaning to post. Measurements don't "lie" - there's always some sort of number behind them - but (as my earlier correction re speed implies) the interpretation is often open to criticism. That certainly doesn't mean measurements are not useful.

I'd also like to correct others and say that, IIRC, I have never claimed that my null ABX results mean that demag is inaudible. What I have claimed is that Mikey and Stephen are wrong when they say it is an "obvious" and "immediate" difference - which I believe my listening, and Ethan's and Arny's, reasonably contradicts, and is supported by the existing measurements.

First off, let me say I appreciate your post and non combative approach.

Quote:
But I do think they have enough meaning to post. Measurements don't "lie" - there's always some sort of number behind them - but (as my earlier correction re speed implies) the interpretation is often open to criticism. That certainly doesn't mean measurements are not useful.

I agree. The issue for me is the relevance and practical implication/application of measured results on a case by case basis. While I think it's silly to condemn them outright, it

Good stuff, Axon and ML.

Quote:
First off, let me say I appreciate your post and non combative approach.

Me, too! Really. Thank you very much.

Quote:
I'd also like to correct others and say that, IIRC, I have never claimed that my null ABX results mean that demag is inaudible. What I have claimed is that Mikey and Stephen are wrong when they say it is an "obvious" and "immediate" difference - which I believe my listening, and Ethan's and Arny's, reasonably contradicts, and is supported by the existing measurements.

Quote:
In terms of listening, I

Quote:
I guess the "immediate" part is a bit less subjective (more objective?) than the "obvious" part.

Yea, I was just trying to avoid the argument that 00:01 was immediate whereas 00.02 wasn't ;-)

I'd spend it on records too.

Quote:
I'd spend it on records too.

Dude, you should see my "order basket" over at Forced Exposure right now. It's scary.

I split mine up between FE, Aquarius, InSound and few others so I can pretend I'm not spending that much.

Has groove deformation, and recovery between playings been discussed; this is a long thread and I didn't see it.
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/...ps&gifs=yes

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=3264

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=1480

There is some discussion here under "Playing the LP" but
obviously there are a lot of untested claims stated:
http://www.delback.co.uk/lp-cdr.htm

Quote:
After using the deMag, it sounded as if we were listening to a different pressing of the same album.

Stephen, I'm sure you are being honest and sincere. What you fail to grasp is that you could have played the same recording a second time without a demag pass and it would have still sounded different. It amazes me that people who think they're expert enough with hi-fi to write for a magazine or manage a forum do not understand this basic fact. Human hearing is frail whether we like it or not. My hearing, your hearing, and everyone else's hearing too.

Even more amazing is Frog-boy's back pedaling. No wait, it's not surprising at all. In my naivety yesterday I assumed froggie would post his guesses and I'd go Bzzzt - wrong! showing him for the fool he is. Even Jan stepped up to the plate and posted his guesses in public. Respect for that Jan, really.

But The Frog knows he's full of crap and can't pick out which file is which from my excerpts. So instead he ducks the challenge and hides behind yet more excuses. Here's a news bulletin for the Frog - converting an AIF file to WAV format does not change the data bits. Nor does extracting and saving off a section to a new file. Don't BS the forum by complaining that recording the LP to digital changed the sound. Just yesterday you heard a difference over the entire length of the digital files. Yet today you can't say which of my excerpts is which.

So folks, we have now proven the validity of blind testing. Guys who insist they can hear a profound difference after "demagnetizing" a vinyl record are suddenly unable to hear the same profound difference when Ethan hides which file is which. Good show chaps! Especially you Frogster.

I urge others to listen carefully to my 10 second excerpts and post which they think are from the Before file and which are After. Once we hear from the green toad I'll reveal which file each excerpt came from. Anyone who would like to visit me in person to see the file fragments and review my method of extraction etc is most welcome. That way nobody can accuse me of lying. Not that I need to lie! Hell, if the files really sounded profoundly different, this thread wouldn't even exist!

--Ethan

Quote:
Stephen, I'm sure you are being honest and sincere. What you fail to grasp is that you could have played the same recording a second time without a demag pass and it would have still sounded different.

Ethan, you love to say things like: "What you fail to grasp..." Do you realize how utterly unattractive, patronizing, and presumptuous that is?

At least in my opinion, I should say, it's really repulsive.

Anyway, I do not fail to grasp the possibility that the LP could have sounded different even without the deMag treatment. In fact, I am completely open to that possibility.

Quote:
It amazes me that people who think they're expert enough with hi-fi to write for a magazine or manage a forum do not understand this basic fact.

Are you insinuating that I claim to be an expert at hi-fi? I do not feel expert at anything. I do my best, and that is all. And I am the forum moderator here. Again, I do my best and that is all. I am similarly amazed, however, that people who do not produce magazines or moderate forums feel they have any authority whatsoever over those who do.

I do not offer my opinion on anyone else's job unless I am asked, and even then only if I have successfully performed that job. And, I know: "Success" is subjective.

Quote:
Human hearing is frail whether we like it or not. My hearing, your hearing, and everyone else's hearing too.

I agree. But I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you concerned that what I'm really saying is that my hearing is better than yours?

Quote:

Quote:
After using the deMag, it sounded as if we were listening to a different pressing of the same album.

Stephen, I'm sure you are being honest and sincere. What you fail to grasp is that you could have played the same recording a second time without a demag pass and it would have still sounded different. It amazes me that people who think they're expert enough with hi-fi to write for a magazine or manage a forum do not understand this basic fact. Human hearing is frail whether we like it or not. My hearing, your hearing, and everyone else's hearing too.

Even more amazing is Frog-boy's back pedaling. No wait, it's not surprising at all. In my naivety yesterday I assumed froggie would post his guesses and I'd go Bzzzt - wrong! showing him for the fool he is. Even Jan stepped up to the plate and posted his guesses in public. Respect for that Jan, really.

But The Frog knows he's full of crap and can't pick out which file is which from my excerpts. So instead he ducks the challenge and hides behind yet more excuses. Here's a news bulletin for the Frog - converting an AIF file to WAV format does not change the data bits. Nor does extracting and saving off a section to a new file. Don't BS the forum by complaining that recording the LP to digital changed the sound. Just yesterday you heard a difference over the entire length of the digital files. Yet today you can't say which of my excerpts is which.

So folks, we have now proven the validity of blind testing. Guys who insist they can hear a profound difference after "demagnetizing" a vinyl record are suddenly unable to hear the same profound difference when Ethan hides which file is which. Good show chaps! Especially you Frogster.

I urge others to listen carefully to my 10 second excerpts and post which they think are from the Before file and which are After. Once we hear from the green toad I'll reveal which file each excerpt came from. Anyone who would like to visit me in person to see the file fragments and review my method of extraction etc is most welcome. That way nobody can accuse me of lying. Not that I need to lie! Hell, if the files really sounded profoundly different, this thread wouldn't even exist!

--Ethan

Poor Ethan. Like the Dittoheads, he can only see one side's failings.

Stephen reported what he heard. He heard a difference.

So did Arny. He heard a difference before deciding he shouldn't have and changing his tune.

Etha reported what he heard. He heard no difference - he never does. That's pretty amazing coming from a guy who tells us how fragile hearing is.

Arny heard a difference, and posted that he had done statistical analysis to prove it!

Ethan heard no diference, yet yipes about the miserable measured performance, which he also can't hear.

Then Ethan points out that differences could have been heard regardless of whether or not the disc had been treated...yet Ethan has reported in the past that he has never been 'fooled' by this phenomenon. Ethan tells you why something happened for you, but it never happens for him, apparently!

The objectivists have been all over the map making up 'data' and 'measurements,' yet Arny, Ethan, and (no flame intended) Axon have arrived at different sets of results.

It appears that 66.6667% of their data is incorrect or fabricated.

Stephen, have you noticed Ethan won't pick on Arny for hearing the difference, but he does if you hear the difference?

Then, Ethan comes up with this gem:

"So folks, we have now proven the validity of blind testing. Guys who insist they can hear a profound difference after "demagnetizing" a vinyl record are suddenly unable to hear the same profound difference when Ethan hides which file is which. Good show chaps!"

Ethan, did you miss the part where Arny demonstrated the ability to hear the difference?

I'd point out once again, that Ethan has also proved how much he can't hear. 3 dB down at 10K and worsening as frequency rises.

Ethan, you have been objectively shown to be unable to hear quite a bit - with measurements you decry as demonstrating poor performance, but you are deaf to.

With what you havn't been able to hear, I'm surprised you have such hatred for vinyl. It's better than you can hear! Maybe you should go back to cassettes or 8-tracks and relax. Digital is not necessary for someone who can't even hear what's wrong with an LP!

Quote:
What you fail to grasp is that you could have played the same recording a second time without a demag pass and it would have still sounded different.

My working hypothesis is that the files do in fact sound different which explains why they sound the same with repeated plays.

Quote:

Quote:
What you fail to grasp is that you could have played the same recording a second time without a demag pass and it would have still sounded different.

My working hypothesis is that the files do in fact sound different which explains why they sound the same with repeated plays.

You are a genius.

I mean that.

Perfect analysis.

Quote:

Quote:
What you fail to grasp is that you could have played the same recording a second time without a demag pass and it would have still sounded different.

My working hypothesis is that the files do in fact sound different which explains why they sound the same with repeated plays.

I had to read that like five times before it started to make sense to me. That is some deep-ass, Zen-like, cosmic unity koan shit right there, yo. Buddhastic, even.

Measure passion and let there be Life on Earth!

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
What you fail to grasp is that you could have played the same recording a second time without a demag pass and it would have still sounded different.

My working hypothesis is that the files do in fact sound different which explains why they sound the same with repeated plays.

You are a genius.

I mean that.

Perfect analysis.

Yup. It is called Habituation to stimuli. After repeating the same portion of music over and over on two different sounding systems, one loses the ability to perceive differences between similar but different sounds. Since one loses this ability to distinquish between different but close sounds, the participants have to guess. So of course it becomes a 50/50 proposition, input data corrupted, thus skewing the math results.

Obviously, an AB test is not a real world situation since habituation to stimuli is introduced (among other problems), so the test is a misapplication of its intended use. The test may be of some value, but it is clearly not flawless nor is it as sensitive as some hype since habituation to stimuli actually desensitizes the "auditory system" to recognize sonic differences, not enhance it.

So the results are obviously skewed even though the math is correct since the data input is corrupted.

As a simple example, car A gets better mileage than car B, 20mpg vs 19mpg. The math proves it. However, that assumes the foundation of the test is sound. We will see what happens when the foundational concepts are not sound.

This foundational concepts consists of many many factors. However some things to look for that influence the input data are equal tire pressure, brakes working properly, air conditioner off etc. In our above example, if the brakes are dragging on car B, the tire pressure is lower on car B, or only car B has the air conditioner is turned, the math is correct but the results will be skewed.

That is why one never sees anything mentioned about the foundational concepts of testing, just the superficial math portion.

The fact is that habituation to stimuli actually desensitizes one's ability to perceive sounds as different. The more the selections are ABd the more the test results are skewed since again, the input data is contaminated.

By the way, I don't align myself at either end of the extremist spectrum.

Hope this helps.

Quote:
Ethan, you love to say things like: "What you fail to grasp..." Do you realize how utterly unattractive, patronizing, and presumptuous that is?

Sorry, but it's the truth and it applies directly to this thread. I may not win any awards for diplomacy, but you can count on me to state the truth. It's repulsive to you only because you know what I said is true. If you said the same to me, and backed it up with logic instead of prose, I promise I'd not be offended. Indeed, I'd take it to heart and learn from it.

Directly related - when Jan and Frog say stuff ten times more offensive to me, you call it an unfortunate reality and tell me to live with it. But when I make a relatively mild chiding comment to you, all of a sudden it's an insult?

Quote:
I do not fail to grasp the possibility that the LP could have sounded different even without the deMag treatment. In fact, I am completely open to that possibility.

Then why did I have to be the first one to suggest that, after you and others here implied the different sound was due solely to the demagnetizing?

Quote:
Are you insinuating that I claim to be an expert at hi-fi?

Actually, that was meant more for Stereophile staff (and other mags and webzines) where staff writers make similar claims about nonsense products like demagnetizers for vinyl and CDs.

Quote:
people who do not produce magazines or moderate forums feel they have any authority whatsoever over those who do.

Well, I produce a newsletter occasionally, and I do moderate my own acoustics forum at Musicplayer.com. But The Truth (Tm) is unrelated to what one does for a living. The Truth just is.

Quote:
I agree [human hearing is frail]. But I'm not sure I understand your point.

You don't see the point when people make ridiculous claims about demagnetizing plastic? Really?! How about claims of improved sound from elevating speaker cables, or placing teensy little bowls or magic dots etc around a room? You really don't see the relation between people believing that silly tweaks work and the fact that hearing and auditory memory are fragile? Really Stephen?

Quote:
Are you concerned that what I'm really saying is that my hearing is better than yours?

Not in the least!

If you're willing to meet me sometime and play with this stuff together, I'd love the opportunity. Or, assuming my AES workshop this October is approved (I'll know very soon), just come to that where I'll demonstrate all of this stuff and much more.

If you do agree to get together in person for some demos, I hope you'll be prepared to have your opinions changed!

--Ethan

Quote:
Life on Earth!

Every time I listen to that clip its different.

RG

Quote:

Sorry, but it's the truth and it applies directly to this thread.

Etha, when will you get to the part where you discuss your own inability to hear those amazing measured 'problems' with the tracks?

When will you discuss Arny's stated and statistically valid claim to have heard the difference?

Truth is, the objectivists have each come up with different objective 'measurements' every time one steps in here.

Not only can you not hear those measured differences, you don't even seem able to measure them correctly.

Which is it, terrible channel imbalance, or sounds the same?

I won't win any diplomacy awards, but you guys are so stinking cavalier and unrigorous with what you call 'objective data' that all we can conclude is that if someone throws spaghetti at the wall and calls it data, you all start goose stepping in time.

Arny couldn't even figure out he was measuring different tracks, for crying out loud.

"Sorry, Stephen, objective blah blah blah..."

Ethan, Arny's listening results should have been a big deal to you. There's your 'proof' right there!

Quote:
Sorry, but it's the truth and it applies directly to this thread.

Here's the thing, Ethan: You think it's the truth, or you want to believe it's the truth, (or something), but it's not. As I said above, I am open to other explanations for the difference in sound. I always have been -- even before you suggested it. I do have my own thoughts; my thoughts do not rely on you. If you choose to ignore my statement, then it is the same as calling me a liar, and I don't appreciate that.

Of course, my primary position is that the deMag influenced the sound. Because:

1. we played the record
2. we deMagged the record
3. we played the record again
4. there were immediate and obvious differences

I simply believe, based on my experience, that the deMag influenced the sound. That is what I reported. I am not concerned with what the deMag does exactly, or how. I do not think that a similar difference in sound would have resulted had we, say, blown on the record or thought nice thoughts or whatever.

Quote:
Then why did I have to be the first one to suggest that, after you and others here implied the different sound was due solely to the demagnetizing?

I don't think I ever suggested that I was opposed to other explanations. Is there some reason why I should have mentioned it? Did you ask earlier?

Quote:
You don't see the point when people make ridiculous claims about demagnetizing plastic? Really?! How about claims of improved sound from elevating speaker cables, or placing teensy little bowls or magic dots etc around a room? You really don't see the relation between people believing that silly tweaks work and the fact that hearing and auditory memory are fragile? Really Stephen?

Sigh. Can you speak without being condescending? It's really tedious. Ethan, your entire argument stems from your belief that demagnetizing vinyl is "ridiculous." We've been through this before. You've asked me these same questions and when I admitted that I am open to the idea that such tweaks may either influence the sound of a system, or influence the listener, you derided me. My mind is open to the possibility of all sorts of things, while you seem only comfortable within your closed set of truths. Where are we supposed to go from there? What middle ground is left for us? Why are we even talking?

Look, I have no problem with you believing whatever you want to believe. If it works for you, great. I just refuse to have you impose your beliefs upon me. Your truths are not mine. I'm not interested in being "right," and I'm not interested in proving you "wrong." I am perfectly fine with the fact that you cannot hear a difference between the sets of files, and I honestly make no value judgments regarding it.

Quote:
If you're willing to meet me sometime and play with this stuff together, I'd love the opportunity. Or, assuming my AES workshop this October is approved (I'll know very soon), just come to that where I'll demonstrate all of this stuff and much more.

I'm sorry, Ethan, but that doesn't sound like fun to me.

I think part of the problem is we tend to personalize these issues which can cloud our reason and make us lose site of relevance. So let

Road Trip to Big Sur!

Quote:
I am open to other explanations for the difference in sound.

But you're not really because then you wrote this:

"I do not think that a similar difference in sound
would have resulted had we, say, blown on the record
or thought nice thoughts or whatever."

Quote:
I don't think I ever suggested that I was opposed to other explanations. Is there some reason why I should have mentioned it? Did you ask earlier?

How many times in the past have I posted a link to my Comb filtering article? How many times have I pointed out the frailty of human hearing, and that what we think we hear is not always true? I'll tell you how many times. A lot of times! But you and others with a "belief-based" mindset ignore it again and again because you don't want to accept that your hearing might be flawed. So instead you and others say I must be deaf. Not hardly.

Quote:
your entire argument stems from your belief that demagnetizing vinyl is "ridiculous."

It IS ridiculous Stephen! And anyone who understands even the most basic aspects of science and audio knows this.

Quote:
Why are we even talking?

Because I hope that one day you'll understand that I've been right all along. I may be naive, but at least I'm consistent!

Quote:
I just refuse to have you impose your beliefs upon me.

Right, my mind is made up so don't confuse me with the facts.

Quote:
Your truths are not mine.

Of course they are. Physics works the same for everyone in this universe, whether you accept that or not.

Quote:
I am perfectly fine with the fact that you cannot hear a difference between the sets of files, and I honestly make no value judgments regarding it.

Speaking of which, I see that you haven't yet chimed in with your guesses as to which excerpts came from which files.

Quote:
I'm sorry, Ethan, but that doesn't sound like fun to me.

Actually, I imagine it would be a lot of fun for both of us. Please?

--Ethan

Is nobody else going to chime in with an opinion about which of my excerpts is Before and which is After? So far the only people besides me with the cajones to pipe up are Arny, Axon, Alex, Jan, and mrlowry (by email to me).

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who is unwilling to go on record to say which clips are which - or acknowledge they hear no difference - has zero credibility as an audiophile. And surely has no business casting stones against me or Arny or Axon or j_j or the others here having a scientific mindset. It's cowardly to toss stones while ducking the core of this thread.

Off the top of my head, still outstanding are:

Stephen Mejias
Frog-Man
Buddha
michaelavorgna
geoff kait
Michael Fremer

I see you're really living up to your name again, Mr. Whiner. Now you're attacking my character, belittling me, denigrating me and even being so childish and rude as to call me names in a message whining about me to the forum's moderator??! That's a first, for me. So why is Ethan such an angry boy today? Are you angry because you were not able to hear the obvious effect of the deMag, when I, SM, JA, MF and other professional audio reviews as well as thousands of other audiophiles across the world were? Is it because this makes it hard for you to live up to your silly self-ingratiating claim that you are a "professional audio expert" with listening skills superior to the average bear?

I don't know why that should come as a surprise to you, that your listening skills are not as good as you think they are or claim them to be (and that's assuming you think they are subpar). On your own website, you talk about testing a bunch of sound cards, from the SB Live, to pro cards costing 10 times its price. And surprise, surprise, you find they all sound the same. However, there was that one case where your friend was able to hear differences where you were not, and he had to tell you how to listen and what to listen for, before you finally got it. How do you know that's still not the case with the deMag? Perhaps because you have already stated it can't work on these forums, long before you ever listened to it?

I guess we might as well see what else your latest tirade reveals about you...

Stephen, I'm sure you are being honest and sincere. What you fail to grasp is that you could have played the same recording a second time without a demag pass and it would have still sounded different.

No, Whiner. Not only are you being your usual condescending self here (in a blatant effort to pretend you know what you're talking about), but you're grasping at straws again, to try to find a reasoning that fits in with your ignorant beliefs. You can play a record a thousand times, and it wouldn't sound "different" in the way demagnetizing it changes its sound.

Even more amazing is Frog-boy's back pedaling. No wait, it's not surprising at all. In my naivety yesterday I assumed froggie would post his guesses and I'd go Bzzzt - wrong! showing him for the fool he is.

I see you're back to calling me names like "Frog-boy" and "froggie", without any provocation whatsoever on my part. Let that be noted for the record, should you ever complain in the future about anyone calling you names.

I think the problem here is you're confusing "naivety" with cretinism. I'm not saying this to insult you Ethan, but you would have to be a complete idiot to think I would fall for some silly little "revenge test" you planned for me in your desparate desire to trip me up, in reaction to your seething anger and frustration at failing to hear such obvious differences between the two MF files, which even your infamous trolling friend Krueger boasted about hearing 20 out of 30 times, under the difference-crushing impact of his ABX software.

The question in my mind is, how bad does your listening skills have to be, to be worse than Krueger's? A guy who claims that absolute polarity is inaudible, and that just about everything that comes down the pike sounds the same?

It seems that stupidity never even takes a coffee break with you, let alone a vacation. Because not only did you go to all this useless effort to trip me up, thinking I would gladly help you do that (without even asking me if I was interested in advance, I might add), but you just get finished saying that you assumed I would post my guesses so you could go "Bzzzt - wrong! Show him for the fool he is!". Which means you never even considered that I could have gotten it right, which means you had no intention of ever saying I did get it right, no matter what I would have said, and how right I would be.

I think all you managed to do here Ethan is show yourself for the fool you are, to everyone reading you.

Even Jan stepped up to the plate and posted his guesses in public. Respect for that Jan, really.

LOL! If you respect Jan's efforts so much, then why haven't you posted the results already, after I already told you I'm not taking your stupid "vengeance test", so that at least Jan's efforts weren't in vain? What about YOU "stepping up to the plate" when Jan asked you to take FC's CD demag test, which is one you couldn't cheat at? Trust me, the respect you have for Jan is NOT mutual towards you, and I have even less respect for you than he does.

But The Whiner knows he's full of crap and can't pick out which file is which from my excerpts. So instead he ducks the challenge and hides behind yet more excuses.

See how easy that is, just change a name and now the statement is actually true? You just proved it true today, by completely ignoring my challenge to you to take FC's CD demag test. You're such a coward in fact, that you didn't even bother to make excuses to hide behind! You simply ignored my challenge to you to take FC's listening test, hoping no one would notice. Me and Jan wasted no time in taking FC's test and even your friend Arny showed interest in doing so. But you?

You have shown your utter and extreme cowardice whenever the issue of listening tests comes up on Stereophile. For weeks on end I tried to negotiate with you to test you at my place, and then after all your sorry excuses dried up, found out you had no intention of ever doing so, but were only pretending to be interested to find out where I lived. For weeks you came up with excuse after excuse for why you couldn't take FC's CD demag test. And now you're ignoring my renewed challenge for you to do so, as well as Jan's. MF's test you took only because it wasn't even a blind test challenge, it was simply a two file demo. And you even failed that! Now you're angrier than a bobcat in a dog pound for having done so, so you concoct what must be Stereophile's first "revenge test", in the stupid hope I'll play along and be your patsy, so you can distract people from your incompetence. The day you fool me Ethan, is the day Nixon gets re-elected.

Here's a news bulletin for the Frog - converting an AIF file to WAV format does not change the data bits. Nor does extracting and saving off a section to a new file. Don't BS the forum by complaining that recording the LP to digital changed the sound. Just yesterday you heard a difference over the entire length of the digital files. Yet today you can't say which of my excerpts is which.

Hey Ethan.... do I need to remind you that you're writing a message to Stephan Mejias? I realize you have a bit of an obsession with me but really... you're confusing the hell out of people, by being so confused yourself. If your desire is to attack me, at least have the courage to do so in a direct message to me, not to SM. As for your so-called "news bulletin", lol, here's one for you: look up the logical fallacy you are engaging in, called "strawman argument".

And then apologize for dishonestly misrepresenting my words and ascribing claims to me that I never made. I also did NOT claim that "recording the LP to digital changed the sound", nor did I claim today that I can't say "which of your excerpts is which". Desparate liar that you are.

So folks, we have now proven the validity of blind testing. Guys who insist they can hear a profound difference after "demagnetizing" a vinyl record are suddenly unable to hear the same profound difference when Ethan hides which file is which. Good show chaps! Especially you Frogster.

Good lord. This lying BS regarding your supposed "conclusion" about blind testing, sounds even more desparate than the previous lies you just got finished saying about me. So far, the only person who took your bullshit vengeance test was Jan. And not only did Jan NOT say he could hear a "profound difference" after demagnetizing a vinyl record, but as of writing this, you did not even reveal the results of your stupid little vengeance test to the group. So how could you even have the gall to make conclusions like this? Simple. You're a liar.

On top of all that, the only thing that you, Arny, Axon et al. "proved" in this thread, is how incompetent you all are at taking "objective" measures, and making conclusions from that. Your measurements and conclusions all contradict one another, and then you all try to make them converge to make the data say what you want it to say ("deMag don't work!"), despite the fact that your data, the conclusions you make, and the subjective tests you clowns have taken, contradict what your data says! You yourself have contradicted your own findings brilliantly, saying on the one hand there are huge differences in the files, but on the other hand, you can't hear a damn thing between them.

So I hope you realize that you just shot out every ounce of credibility you may have had going into this thread, with these ridiculously false and/or contradictory proclamations.

I urge others to listen carefully to my 10 second excerpts and post which they think are from the Before file and which are After. Once we hear from the green toad I'll reveal which file each excerpt came from.

While I urge others NOT to humour Ethan, and ignore his request. His test was designed as a form of vengeance against me (hence the reason the files are named "Frog..."). A plan of payback for me inadvertently making him look like the deaf fool he is. He has been proven to have lied in this very message, so it is HIGHLY likely he intends to lie in whatever way possible that makes him come out on top in all of this. Plus, since it will be a cold day in hell when I take his silly little revenge test, that means according to what he just said, you'll be sure to be wasting your time since you'll never get the results.

I have heard them and Ethan's 10 second canned garbage is NOTHING like Michael Fremer's original AIFF demo files. I note that not only did Ethan not say what he did to the files (to make them sound so much worse than the originals),
but he did not even tell people what they were supposed to be listening to; deliberately hiding the information on which files were supposed to be copies of the original version and which were copies of the demag version. This was probably done to help him get away with lying about the results later. He could then say ALL were original versions, or three were originals, or two were demagged, etc., in the hopes of then making the tester look MORE wrong than otherwise possible, when his phony "results" are called. If this wasn't the "vengeance test" it is, and he was serious in his efforts and intended to be honest, Ethan would have prepared us for this well in advance, and asked if I was interested before thrusting his test onto me. This was a waste of time for Ethan, let's not let it be a waste of time for anyone else!

Not that I need to lie!

Yes, you do. Your fragile inflated ego demands this of you. Your reaction to my test results says it all. You flailing your arms about crying and whining at Stephan about me, says that you're lying right now, about not needing to lie.

Hell, if the files really sounded profoundly different, this thread wouldn't even exist!

Like hell it wouldn't. You can't hear the difference between a $60 soundcard and a $600 soundcard. If this thread were about soundcards, then it would be all about how what you and your DBT church buddies can't hear, can't possibly exist. Then you would run some "objective" tests on it to pretend you have 'science' backing you, and whatever differences showed up, if you even mentioned them, you'd conclude they were meaningless, or there were mistakes made in the analysis. Because one way or the other, you people always MANIPULATE information to fit your own backward, twisted beliefs about audio. Like as if anyone would actually predict that Ethan Whiner, at the end of this thread, would come out believing the Furutech deMag product, one which he issued crazy rants again long before MF's files showed up, would change his mind about it at the end.

Railing against high end audio tweaks is Ethan Winer's raison d'etre. When was the last time you changed your mind about a high end audio tweak product that you were initially against, tell me now?

Quote:
...has zero credibility as an audiophile

Does that mean I have to turn in my secret decoder ring?

Quote:

Quote:
I am open to other explanations for the difference in sound.

But you're not really because then you wrote this:

"I do not think that a similar difference in sound
would have resulted had we, say, blown on the record
or thought nice thoughts or whatever."

Those are not contradictory statements, Ethan. Let me explain:

If you told me I had three options for understanding the differences I heard between the playings of the Diana Krall LP -- 1. comb filtering; 2., the Furutech deMag; 3., Fozzy Bear -- I would say "maybe" to comb filtering, "no way!" to Fozzy Bear, and "most likely" to the deMag. Do you see the difference? Your idea is possible, but I trust my experience more.

Quote:

Quote:
I don't think I ever suggested that I was opposed to other explanations. Is there some reason why I should have mentioned it? Did you ask earlier?

How many times in the past have I posted a link to my Comb filtering article? How many times have I pointed out the frailty of human hearing, and that what we think we hear is not always true? I'll tell you how many times. A lot of times! But you and others with a "belief-based" mindset ignore it again and again because you don't want to accept that your hearing might be flawed. So instead you and others say I must be deaf. Not hardly.

I was talking about in this thread, Ethan. In this thread, you did not ask me whether I was open to other explanations regarding the differences I heard before and after the deMag. I am not ignoring you, I accept that my hearing is flawed, and I have never said or suggested that you are deaf. I do, however, openly and happily disagree with your taste in just about everything. My ideas are based on my experiences, and I will admit that my experience is limited. However, I feel that limited experience is more valuable than pseudo-scientific ideals based on skepticism and ignorance, which is all you seem to offer.

I have no reason to believe anything you say. You do not impress me in any way. I do not trust you. I do not share your values. I am sorry, but we are very different people. Perhaps we can agree on something else, but I see little common ground for us in matters regarding audio.

Quote:

Quote:
your entire argument stems from your belief that demagnetizing vinyl is "ridiculous."

It IS ridiculous Stephen! And anyone who understands even the most basic aspects of science and audio knows this.

I disagree. I have said that I don't understand why or how the deMag works. I don't know whether the Furutech product was "demagnetizing" vinyl, or transmogrifying it. I'm not concerned with those issues. I heard a positive effect on the music. That's all.

Quote:

Quote:
Why are we even talking?

Because I hope that one day you'll understand that I've been right all along.

You may be right, but my experience tells me otherwise.

Quote:

Quote:
I am perfectly fine with the fact that you cannot hear a difference between the sets of files, and I honestly make no value judgments regarding it.

Speaking of which, I see that you haven't yet chimed in with your guesses as to which excerpts came from which files.

I don't have a hi-fi connected to my laptop, so I can't draw any useful conclusions. My laptop here at work has cheap Dell computer speakers and poor overall sound quality. I cannot hear a difference between the files you posted. I did, however, hear a difference when I listened at Michael Fremer's home. The difference was immediate and obvious.

Quote:

Quote:
I'm sorry, Ethan, but that doesn't sound like fun to me.

Actually, I imagine it would be a lot of fun for both of us. Please?

No, thank you.

Quote:
Is nobody else going to chime in with an opinion about which of my excerpts is Before and which is After? So far the only people besides me with the cajones to pipe up are Arny, Axon, Alex, Jan, and mrlowry (by email to me).

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who is unwilling to go on record to say which clips are which - or acknowledge they hear no difference - has zero credibility as an audiophile. And surely has no business casting stones against me or Arny or Axon or j_j or the others here having a scientific mindset. It's cowardly to toss stones while ducking the core of this thread.

Off the top of my head, still outstanding are:

Frog-Man
Aqua-Man
The Incredible Bulk
The Green Hornet
Underdog
Casper the Unfriendly Ghost
El Chupacabra the Mexican wrestler
The Naked Cowboy
Hercules
Colonel Sanders
Flash Gordon
The Our Lady of Eternal Damnation Boys Choir

Ethan, Ethan, Ethan..... your public meltdown over failing to hear anything in every test you've ever done, and failing to prove anything except your incompetence, when you and your DBT choir boys attempted to "objectively measure" MF's files, is really starting to (not) concern me. Your pronouncement to Stephan that you are the sole owner and proprietor of "The TrVth" (reg. tm.) in audio, is really starting to make me wonder if you are not simply beyond therapy at this point.

I'm sorry to inform you but, no one cares about this silly little "vengeance test" you came up with at the last minute, to try to trip me up with. Least of all me. And why should anyone, since you clearly stated you would not give them the results until I took your scam test, and this was after I already stated I would not take your scam test.

And even after he declined, begging Stephan to go to Conneticut to help you hear Michael Fremer's files? That's just creepy, man. Get a grip. You have proven to have the resolving ability of a comatose cactus. What is Stephan supposed to do about that? Grant you super powers? What is he, Super Audio-Fi Guy? Not that you need super powers to hear what the deMag does, because I demo'ed it with a friend who is not even an audiophile, let alone a self-proclaimed "internet audio expert", and they heard the changes just as well. But come on, get realistic. You at least have to be able to hear the difference between say, a trombone and a gunshot. And you can't be trusted to even hear that difference.

So while your measurements say there are significant differences between MF's files, as much as 3db down at 10k and worsening as the HE peaks, what you who can't hear worth a shit is telling us is that if you can't hear those differences, then there aren't any differences. Which according to you means your erroneous presumptions in the name of "science" has proven that demagnetizing has no effect on LP's (which nevertheless contain particles that can be magnetized).

If you have ANY rationality or reason left inside of you Ethan, and I am NOT assuming you do, then I wish to speak directly to that part of you when I say:

I wish you would STOP speaking for "science", because you have no relationship with science, and "science" is in fact embarassed by you. All we ever see you spout here is pseudoscience, while attacking those who disagree with your ignorant pseudioscientific proclamations as "ignorant of science".

Now as for that ridiculous nonsense you proclaimed above, let me point out something to you: You, Arny, Axon and jj, are NOT by any stretch of the imagination, "audiophiles". So for you to say that anyone else who doesn't take your silly vengeance test you threw together for me, which is either fixed or who's results you have no intention of revealing anyway (and if you ever do, it's clear that you are so toxically poisoned with your irrational hatred and prejudices against audiophiles that you could -never- be trusted to do so honestly), has "zero credibility as an audiophile", is just a stupid joke on your part, worth nothing but laughing at. And ironic, since you have zero credibility under the label of "audiophile" or the label of "scientifically minded". Your deliberate misrepresentation of both my beliefs and your "objective" measurements has removed all doubt as to how your anti-high end audio agenda prevents you from even having an objective, "scientific" thought.

It's cowardly to toss stones while ducking the core of this thread.

I'll tell you the same thing I told your friend Arny. Take your own advice. You're the coward who has ignored calls from at least two members now, myself included, to participate in Fresh Clip's CD Demag test. Seems you're only interested in blind tests when you have nothing to lose, doesn't it?

What a shocker.

Off the top of my head, still outstanding are:

Ethan.

"As far as I'm concerned, anyone who is unwilling to go on record to say which of FC

My pet theories are hemorrhagic stroke, really bad motorcycle accident and the ever-popular, veteran.

Really the issue here is that we're dealing with digitized samples. We'll all just have to drop in on MF and hear it first hand, then conduct a carefully thought out blind test.

Just kidding of course.

Quote:

Quote:
your entire argument stems from your belief that demagnetizing vinyl is "ridiculous."

It IS ridiculous Stephen! And anyone who understands even the most basic aspects of science and audio knows this.

Actually, a basic google search will bring up this:

Quote:
Process for removing iron impurities from petroleum oil distillation residues
Document Type and Number:
United States Patent 5607575

Abstract:
A process for removing iron impurities, inter alia iron or iron compounds, from petroleum oil distillation residues is disclosed in which a high gradient magnetic separator incorporates a pack of ferromagnetic fillers in the form of a generally flat or curved sheet-like strip. The ferromagnetic filler is a Fe--Cr alloy of a selected composition and the strip is of selected geometric characteristics such that the rate of removal of iron impurities can be maintained substantially at a maximum throughout the separation mode of operation prior to and after washing of the ferromagnetic filler.

IIRC, digging further reveals that it is not uncommon for the insides of tankers to rust into their contents (while significant quantities of ferromagnetic materials in actual oil deposits are kind of rare). Superficially, insofar as carbon black is a petroleum byproduct (and even a distillation residue as I recall!), the chemical path IS there for iron to make its way into a record.

Note that does *not* prove that any record is actually ferromagnetic at any significant level - it just means that it's harder to dismiss the problem than even I anticipated. Just because the conjecture is plausible doesn't mean it's true or important.

Quote:
Really the issue here is that we're dealing with digitized samples. We'll all just have to drop in on MF and hear it first hand, then conduct a carefully thought out blind test.

Just kidding of course.

It

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
your entire argument stems from your belief that demagnetizing vinyl is "ridiculous."

It IS ridiculous Stephen! And anyone who understands even the most basic aspects of science and audio knows this.

Actually, a basic google search will bring up this:

You mean Ethan Windbag, the self-proclaimed sole representative and defender of science on this forum, doesn

I'm not sure anybody in the entire field of audio knows what they're talking about on the subject of petroleum engineering. (Petroleum engineers excluded, of course).

.. actually I do have a FOAF who is a petroleum engineer, maybe I can ask her...

Quote:
I'm not sure anybody in the entire field of audio knows what they're talking about on the subject of petroleum engineering. (Petroleum engineers excluded, of course).

.. actually I do have a FOAF who is a petroleum engineer, maybe I can ask her...

Exactly my point. Mr. Ethan "Know-nothing" Windbag claims, in his insulting and patronizing words to Stephen, that "anyone who understands even the most basic aspects of science and audio knows that demagnetizing vinyl is ridiculous" . Yet as you (and I earlier in this thread) pointed out, you need to know a lot more than the 'basic aspects of science' in order to make the bold arrogant claim that Ethan does about the basic principle behind the Furutech deMag being impossible. You might, for example, need to understand petroleum engineering, which is hardly a "basic aspect of science", taught in a high school science class (I am of course presuming from reading him for 2 years that Ethan did not go beyond high school).

So as you've shown (and I before you), that what Ethan really means by his words, is that anyone who doesn't understand the most basic aspects of science and audio, "knows" that demagnetizing vinyl is ridiculous. Which I guess kind of tidily explains Ethan's ignorance about so very many things in audio, which he for some strange reason insists he's an expert on.

Have you noticed how Ethan still sidesteps the facts?

1) Arny heard the difference and offered supporting statistical validation.

2) Ethan heard no difference, yet there was a 3 dB and rising degree of difference between channels?

3) Ethan disdains vinyl performance, yet he is incapable of hearing the 'measured' flaws he opines.

Ethan can't hear it, yet he profers it as proof of vinyl's poor performance.

Ethan is picking at Stephen, yet Ethan can't hear the gross measured diffrences he points out as flaws.

Is Ethan the naked emperor?

Ethan, Arny heard the difference!

Although, to be honset, no telling what the fuck Arny heard, he may be claiming that 66% of the time he can tell the difference between right and left!

Ethan, step up to the plate.

Why can't you hear the terrible criticism-worthy differences you like to point out? If you whine about it, you should be able to hear it - RIGHT?

Get off Stephen with the aural hegemony and explain your terrible inability to hear!

blah.

Ethan's debating style aside, I must say I agree with his general notion here - although I would like to reword it. Or hell, I'll just rewrite it from scratch.

There are lots of personal perceptions I've experienced involving things unique to one configuration or another, and I experience them as soon as I start listening. I have no problem dismissing many of them for all kinds of good reasons. (Fozzy Bear is a strong factor in my listening.) So I have no problem looking at your experiences, which sound rather similar, with a jaded and critical eye. Golden Rule, y'all.

I don't even doubt that I would likely perceive the same thing that you perceived when listening to Michael's rig. But I don't think I would come to your conclusions! This isn't really a *proof* that the demag observations were/are placebo - that's never going to exist. It is simply a discussion of why, just like the interpretation of numerical measurements (and ABX test results!) can be criticized, the interpretation of subjective perceptions can (and should) also be criticized. And the nature of such interpretations often invites them to very aggressive criticism. And ultimately, "objectivists" and "subjectivists" really are perceiving similar (or even the same) things when the listen to the same systems - it's just the interpretations of those perceptions that differ.

On a somewhat related note, I also think that pressing differences (and even real mastering differences) are often very overblown. When loudness-equalized, I doubt many instances of clipping make an audible difference. I also think that the mastering differences between vinyl and CD are far smaller than most people think, and are generally close to zero nowadays. So as an admittedly mindless nitpick, comparing the Furutech differences to pressing differences does not strike me as a particularly assertive statement of audibility <wink>

Anyways, the frequency differences I measured suggest trying an ABX test with a system with really good bass extension - Stephen, I can only imagine that Michael's system did not leave you wanting for that? Do you or he have any numbers on 3db points or the like? That could be an important variable to consider, which may distinguish Mikey's system from the ones many of us posters are using. I for one am listening with Etys so I'm more or less deaf to anything under 50hz (and any harmonic distortion under 5%, heh). That said, I'm not sure this bass thing explains all the things people mention about demag. Surely not all the positive reviews involve people with subwoofers.

I'm not Ethan but I'll still respond!

Quote:
Have you noticed how Ethan still sidesteps the facts?

1) Arny heard the difference and offered supporting statistical validation.

Well, the most obvious copout is that Arny just got lucky. There's a 1/20 chance of that happening, which is unlikely, but certainly possible. I've been certain I could hear things too before I fall flat on my face on an ABX test - maybe Arny just didn't this time.

Another possibility is that Arny heard something but that it had nothing to do with demag - maybe he really did hear groove deformation, it certainly does exist (although I kinda doubt it's a big deal and I'm rather skeptical of its audibility). Or maybe the low frequency variations I noticed coupled into wow/flutter differences which affected what he heard.

In other words, just because it's a positive result doesn't necessarily mean that demag is confirmed to be audible. Vinyl tests (whether numeric or qualitative) do not come to us on a silver platter. Effects are mixed with other effects, analysis runs can come up with substantially different values depending on seemingly meaningless input parameters, etc. A lot of the brouhaha here about "the numbers" reflects that it really is a complicated situation.

One positive ABX result in isolation doesn't mean as much as multiple positive results. Individual results are not meaningless, but if nobody else can confirm them, what exactly do they mean? There are a few cases in the scientific literature where truly bizarre theories are studied with great care and generate compelling results - which cannot be reproduced later. Then, as now, if further research cannot salvage anything of use, the only conclusion is to drop the whole thing and move on. We're certainly not to that point yet in this discussion, but it's quite plausible that Arny's results could wind up in some state like that.

Quote:
So as you've shown (and I before you), that what Ethan really means by his words, is that anyone who doesn't understand the most basic aspects of science and audio, "knows" that demagnetizing vinyl is ridiculous. Which I guess kind of tidily explains Ethan's ignorance about so very many things in audio, which he for some strange reason insists he's an expert on.

My point was more that Furutech probably doesn't know any more about it than Ethan does.

Quote:
Yup. It is called Habituation to stimuli. After repeating the same portion of music over and over on two different sounding systems, one loses the ability to perceive differences between similar but different sounds. Since one loses this ability to distinquish between different but close sounds, the participants have to guess. So of course it becomes a 50/50 proposition, input data corrupted, thus skewing the math results.

I don't doubt that habituation (and testing fatigue) occurs, but doesn't dishabituation also occur? I find that I am sensitive to things inside an ABX test that I never noticed outside, and it usually takes a few listens to nail down what I'm hearing before my successful results begin.

Quote:
That is why one never sees anything mentioned about the foundational concepts of testing, just the superficial math portion.

I think this also reflects that these tests are predominantly conducted by amateurs instead of clinical/academic people, and clinical-grade DBTs are much more involved than a basic ABX. But I don't think that makes the use of ABX tests necessarily bad (although there are certainly applications it is not suited for). There's a real tradeoff between using a protocol that is immune to various biases, and making the protocol too unwieldy for reasonably simple and effective use.

Like I said before on HA: If you're trying to make ABX results that have some sort of universal meaning for all listeners, you'll have a devil of a time getting type II error down. But often times, that's not necessary to form an informed personal conclusion about the (un)importance of some particular effect. You don't need a weatherman...

Quote:

Of course, my primary position is that the deMag influenced the sound. Because:

1. we played the record
2. we deMagged the record
3. we played the record again
4. there were immediate and obvious differences

I simply believe, based on my experience, that the deMag influenced the sound.

The above is *not* an experiment that is sufficient to support the conclusion that is stated above. It has two glaring errors that I personally would have noticed when I was in middle school back in the early 1960s:

(1) Not bias-controlled.

(2) There is no control sequence that is identical except for the operation of the demagnetizer.

My wife has a BA in Experimental Psychology, and I have two children with PhDs in Cancer Reasearch. They'd see those debilitating flaws, and perhaps others, about instantly.

There must be 100,000s or more people in just the US who have enough education and/or work background to see the above flaws.

I take the many comments supporting the above alleged experiment from people who should see the same flaws as an indictment of the teaching of Science by the American educational system.

This sort of thing should have never gotten this far. If this were the first half of the 20th century, maybe. But not now.