Recall cd laser is a quantum device so that the laser light is in form of waves and the waves continuously interfere. This is why the scattered light frequently exceeds the 70% threshold and is detected by the photodetector as "real signal." Keep in mind the laser is pumping out billions and billions of photons per sec, the entire inside of the player is lit up like a Christmas tree.

Early results:

Well I soon tired of my $2 discount store CD's.. What I was hoping was going to be orchestral music was in fact a technically awful mess of electronic instruments interposed with a few acoustic ones. In other words.. you gets what you pays for

However, I do have a pair of identical treated and untreated discs so I carried on with the ripping and software analysis, images follow.

Here is the complete waveform of track 1 off the "star" and "circle disks as they were marked by Mrs Fresh. I have imported a screen capture into Photoshop, reduced one image to 50% opacity and tweaked its colour. It will become clearer in subsequent images. So far, they appear to be identical.

At 3X Magnification. still remarkably similar.

At 6X magnification.

And at 12X mag.

As you can see, the waveforms, properly aligned, create a perfect parallel to each other. From this I conclude that any heat caused by induction, or any effect from the magnetic field has not caused any alteration in the signal being reproduced from the disc under these conditions.

I think I'll concede a point here to my fellow members and recant my assertion about the disc and its contents. A more technically sound recording should be used for the listening tests. I had a limited time to source the discs last week but I'll redouble my efforts to find a worthy recording this week.

Naturally, I will subject the discs to the same analysis as these ones.

In addition to this I will use this monster de-magnetizer

(tape bulk eraser) to put the fear of god into the original treated disc *when Mrs Fresh tells me which one it is* Then I will repeat the ripping and magnification test to see if a truly epic amount of magnetism/induction will cause any effect.

The images aren't super clear so If anyone wants I'll make the PSD file available for close scrutiny. I'll have to put it up on the web server at work so be patient.

Quote:
Equally, the discs will be ripped on the same drive into the same machine and assessed in the same application. Like I said before, this is a comparison of apples with apples.

As I said, it's possible we don't want to compare apples or at least not a Granny Smith to a MacIntosh. But you don't want to hear dissenting voices so ...

Quote:
I will be using headphones for my testing, not speakers.

Then you will make this "test" relevant only to those listeners who carry headphone amps with them on the subway. Eliminating speakers tosses out a vast majority of the qualities audiophiles prize in a better resolved source. You are once angain only thinking of what you already know and already not believing anything else can happen. Not to say KBK's experiment wasn't a start on investigating this issue but to assume it is the last word in the results column is absurd.

Quote:
For those of you who want to run this experiment off the rails before it is completed, you are promoting your bias and ignorance.

You put together a test that has numerous and obvious flaws and then call someone else biased and ignorant for pointing out those flaws?! OK that garners a "ROTFLMAO"!

Only seeing what posts you care to see is as ridiculous as constructing your DBT with so many things going unaccounted. I'm no statistician but apparently neither is FC.

Can someone explain what would have to change in these waveforms to indicate an improvement in, say, "soundstaging" or "palpable presence" or even timbre, pacing, clarity, pitch accuracy or stability, definition or detail retrieval or how about emotional connection?

C'mon, guys, I would think one of the self proclaimed enormously talented and highly experienced recording engineers here should be able to provide that information.

The idea you began this conclusive test with $2 discount store CD's will go unmentioned.

"So far they look remarkably similar."

I'd call them significantly dissimilar, at least the large set of waveforms, top of page.

No, they're identical. I shifted the red tinted waveform up a couple of pixels to try to illustrate that the peaks and troughs were perfectly aligned. It's a tricky thing to represent easily. It's easier with the magnified waveforms as they don't occupy so much vertical space.

Quote:
"So far they look remarkably similar."

I'd call them significantly dissimilar, at least the large set of waveforms, top of page.

It's just good old parallax error Geoiff. Once you get your eyes calibrated you'll see it in a different light, oops, no pun intended. Cheerio.

Frank S, does the test tell you how the signals differ and in which way, or is it an 'eyeball' test?

If the machine can tell you how the two differ, what are the 'units?'

Also, have you ever compared the same disc played different times?

I'd be curious to see if there is ever any variation within the same disc!

Quote:
Frank S, does the test tell you how the signals differ and in which way, or is it an 'eyeball' test?

If the machine can tell you how the two differ, what are the 'units?'

Also, have you ever compared the same disc played different times?

I'd be curious to see if there is ever any variation within the same disc!

Fresh_Clip can answer better than I can but tests using waveforms can be done quite easily. I think you could use audacity (freeware) to compare the waveforms visually just as Fresh Clip has done. You can magnify parts of the waveform to prove they indeed are identical and you can also copy them directly over each other to compare. He did exactly what you are supposed to do as far as I can tell.

Quote:
Frank S, does the test tell you how the signals differ and in which way, or is it an 'eyeball' test? If the machine can tell you how the two differ, what are the 'units?'

The best to hope for from a test like this is to establish there's no difference. If there is a difference, that's tough to identify. But if there's no difference that proves the sound is not changed. BTW, the easiest way to verify files is with a file compare utility.

--Ethan

Quote:

Quote:
Frank S, does the test tell you how the signals differ and in which way, or is it an 'eyeball' test? If the machine can tell you how the two differ, what are the 'units?'

The best to hope for from a test like this is to establish there's no difference. If there is a difference, that's tough to identify. But if there's no difference that proves the sound is not changed. BTW, the easiest way to verify files is with a file compare utility.

--Ethan

Ethan, when you compare CD's in a situation like this, do you typically get 'identical' results?

I'm mostly curious about just how consistent the test is, and if the results vary with the same disc, or between 'treated' discs, how would differences be expressed?

I'm looking at the two large waveforms at the top of your post. It appears the top photo is the most enlarged, the bottom photo the least enlarged, which is opposite how you labeled them. Am I missing something 'cause the top photo waveforms are not at all identical? Well, only in a general way...but you would expect some similarity. But the details are quite different.

Geoff, that first pic is the left and right channel of the star disc and the left and right channel of the circle disc superimposed on eachother. I just nudged the top waveform up but it's a bit messy and confusing.

The others show four distinct traces which also represent the L and R of each superimposed. However, there is enough space to separate them and make them more distinct.

I'll redo the images when I have auditioned my two new discs, which, I have just purchased. I have gone to considerably more expense in that these were $9.95 apiece. So far then, this experiment has cost me $22.90. The new discs are proper classical recordings on the "Naxos" label. Not a premium label but far superior to the ghastly mess I bought on the other two discs. I'll make a mobile out of the originals to scare the birds off our vegetable patch

I'll also publish full sized images with thumbnail links rather than cut them down to be 800x500 for the forum.

Hopefully, I'll begin the revised experiment this evening.

Maybe separate the channels and compare L channels on one photo and R channels on another - that way you preserve the details, if there are subtle differences.

Quote:
The best to hope for from a test like this is to establish there's no difference. If there is a difference, that's tough to identify. But if there's no difference that proves the sound is not changed.

No one sees a flaw in this logic either? This means this test isn't really designed to show differences only that all things are the same no matter what differences exist. Why not compare a chicken to an omlette to see what differences emerge?

Quote:

No one sees a flaw in this logic either? This means this test isn't really designed to show differences only that all things are the same no matter what differences exist. Why not compare a chicken to an omlette to see what differences emerge?

Your right Jan. Does the program really have the resolution? How much averaging is done in the program? If no difference is measured, that does not prove that no difference exists. It could be other factors including what I have mentioned above.

We also know that two amps can measure the same yet sound quite different, again demonstrating that measurements do not tell the whole story. Capacitors are an excellent parts example in that they can "measure the same" with a test instrument, yet sound different because of different ESR, DA, materials used etc.

If the program/electronics has a masking problem, anything below the mask will not be identified. This again belongs in the resolution corner.

Since we're on this "difference" thing for awhile, I'll retry my post from yesterday. I hope someone answers it this time. Otherwise, I'll have to conclude there is no way to detect these changes from this test.

Quote:
Can someone explain what would have to change in these waveforms to indicate an improvement in, say, "soundstaging" or "palpable presence" or even timbre, pacing, clarity, pitch accuracy or stability, definition or detail retrieval or how about emotional connection?

C'mon, guys, I would think one of the self proclaimed enormously talented and highly experienced recording engineers here should be able to provide that information.

I know there were several members who debated the ... uh ... well, you guys called them "merits' of Yamaha NS10M's so there must be someone who is really, really smart about all this studio stuff - maybe someone who even knows everything - who can answer this question.

Quote:
Ethan, when you compare CD's in a situation like this, do you typically get 'identical' results?

Yes, always. But to test it once more for you, I just extracted a friend's tune from a CDR he brought me yesterday. I extracted it as a Wave file to a hard drive using Sound Forge, then I did it again to a different file. While the file was being extracted from CD the second time I shook and tilted my big Dell tower as hard as I dared for the entire 10 seconds or so it took to extract. Then I ran FC (Windows file compare utility) and both files are identical. Now, this tests susceptibility of a CD player to vibration, not demagnetizing. But the same test can be used to see if demagnetizing a CD <roll eyes> has any effect, or cleaning a CD, or anything else. If the files are identical then the sound is too. I'm sure this is no surprise to anyone who has even the most minimal grasp of logic.

--Ethan

Quote:
If the files are identical then the sound is too. I'm sure this is no surprise to anyone who has even the most minimal grasp of logic.

OK, so let's say you have a second disc that displays an improvement in one or more of the qualities of "soundstaging" with wider or deeper stages or more sense of the recording venue or "palpable presence" of the performers or even timbre, pacing, timing, clarity, pitch accuracy or pitch stability, definition, texture or detail retrieval or how about emotional connection or a recording that is more "musical". What would have changed when you compare this sort of waveform against the lesser product?

Seems like there must be a logical answer since these are qualities that obviously do improve for the careful listener with better player isolation, damping the top plate of the player, demagnetization or cleaning and various treatments of the disc including coloring the edges or shaving the edges, placing foil on the label side of the disc or even placing a specific color of paper in the disc tray.

>>> "Now, this tests susceptibility of a CD player to vibration, not demagnetizing. But the same test can be used to see if demagnetizing a CD <roll eyes> has any effect, or cleaning a CD, or anything else. If the files are identical then the sound is too. I'm sure this is no surprise to anyone who has even the most minimal grasp of logic." <<<

Sorry, Ethan. It DOES not mean that if the files are identical then the sound IS identical too !!! To many people have experienced the fact that the sound IS NOT identical from the same data.

Believe me Ethan. There are numerous people who have "even the most minimal grasp of logic" but who also know that the data can be identical whilst the sound is different !!!

LOGIC would tell you that if the sound is different, whilst the data is identical, then you have to look elsewhere for the explanation as to why the sound is different.

All you are talking about is a test to see if such as vibration, demagnetising, cleaning, cryogenic freezing, colouring the edge of a CD etc. CHANGES the DATA !!! OR, aiming a hair dryer containing tourmaline at a CD changes the DATA !!!! If those things do not change the data, then the tests (after doing those things) will show the data to be identical. So, how are you going to deal with the fact that the SOUND is DIFFERENT ????

<roll of eyes> Are you going to weep, beat your chest, turn to drink, hide, or actually THINK ???

Regards,
May Belt.

Ethan-

One thing that you've over looked is that the "extracting" process of a CD-ROM isn't the same as the "playing process" of a home CD player. The C-ROM will re-read data many, many times if it doesn't get it on the first couple of passes. It probably took a little longer for the second "extracting" for that reason. Would that difference in burn time be noticeable on a single song? Maybe not, but for a whole album it might.

Quote:
the "extracting" process of a CD-ROM isn't the same as the "playing process" of a home CD player. The C-ROM will re-read data many, many times if it doesn't get it on the first couple of passes.

Yes, but CD players can do that too, no? This is why CD players meant for joggers have a large RAM buffer. If the CD is mis-read because the player is bouncing around, the mechanism will read again as needed. So playback is still seamless.

Also, I didn't time the extractions, but the second time while I tilted and shook my PC seemed to go at the same pace, and the progress bar was just as smooth.

As I point out repeatedly in discussions like this, the real question is why people sometimes think the sound changed even when it could not possibly have changed. It's as if some people want badly to believe there's more to good audio than what it seems on the surface. Usually it's much less.

--Ethan

Quote:
OK, so let's say you have a second disc that displays an improvement in one or more of the qualities of "soundstaging" with wider or deeper stages or more sense of the recording venue or "palpable presence" of the performers or even timbre, pacing, timing, clarity, pitch accuracy or pitch stability, definition, texture or detail retrieval or how about emotional connection or a recording that is more "musical". What would have changed when you compare this sort of waveform against the lesser product?

Are we still talking about files that are bit-for-bit identical? If we are, then that proves the differences are imagined. That's the only reasonable explanation. Heck, that's the only explanation period.

--Ethan

Quote:
To many people have experienced the fact that the sound IS NOT identical from the same data.

I do believe they experience this, but that's just more evidence that hearing is very fragile. Bit-for-bit identical files are by definition the same. If you believe otherwise that just proves you have no idea how audio and data files work. I have no nicer way to say it May.

--Ethan

Quote:

Quote:
OK, so let's say you have a second disc that displays an improvement in one or more of the qualities of "soundstaging" with wider or deeper stages or more sense of the recording venue or "palpable presence" of the performers or even timbre, pacing, timing, clarity, pitch accuracy or pitch stability, definition, texture or detail retrieval or how about emotional connection or a recording that is more "musical". What would have changed when you compare this sort of waveform against the lesser product?

Are we still talking about files that are bit-for-bit identical? If we are, then that proves the differences are imagined. That's the only reasonable explanation. Heck, that's the only explanation period.

--Ethan

I agree. Bit for bit perfect = indifferent sound. The imagination of those hearing differences are........well imagining things.

Quote:
Too many people have experienced the fact that the sound IS NOT identical from the same data.

Believe me Ethan. There are numerous people who have "even the most minimal grasp of logic" but who also know that the data can be identical whilst the sound is different !!!

Who are THESE people?

Quote:

LOGIC would tell you that if the sound is different, whilst the data is identical, then you have to look elsewhere for the explanation as to why the sound is different.

LOGIC would tell you that they are hearing things.

Quote:

Quote:
OK, so let's say you have a second disc that displays an improvement in one or more of the qualities of "soundstaging" with wider or deeper stages or more sense of the recording venue or "palpable presence" of the performers or even timbre, pacing, timing, clarity, pitch accuracy or pitch stability, definition, texture or detail retrieval or how about emotional connection or a recording that is more "musical". What would have changed when you compare this sort of waveform against the lesser product?

Are we still talking about files that are bit-for-bit identical? If we are, then that proves the differences are imagined. That's the only reasonable explanation. Heck, that's the only explanation period.

You must have missed "what would have changed"? If something changed, then they are not identical. So how would the "better" sounding disc look compared to the lesser? How would the waveform change to reflect those changes in the sound qualities listed?

And how does this prove the differences are "imagined" rather than not being reflected in the waveform shapes? That's another of your biased opinions that would negate all of your answers for any reasonable person.

Quote:
the "extracting" process of a CD-ROM isn't the same as the "playing process" of a home CD player.

More thoughts on this. Data and audio CDs both have redundant data and checksums to know if there was an error when reading. The main difference is that data CDs have 16 bits of redundancy for every 16 bits of data, and audio CDs have only 14 redundant bits. If audio CDs were unable to read again when an error occurs, then there would be no point in having the redundant bits to allow data reconstruction. More here, including links to even more detailed web pages:

http://stason.org/TULARC/pc/cd-recordable/2-17-Why-don-t-audio-CDs-use-error-correction.html

--Ethan

I still can't believe the uber-cynic is arguing against leveling a CD player. Even unreasonable opinion reaches a limit that crosses a line into the ridiculous. You've crossed that line, Winer.

Quote:
You must have missed "what would have changed"?

I miss nothing. It's just that you weren't clear if you meant files that are bit-for-bit identical or not. I did see you ask this earlier, but there's no good answer to how the waveform might change if various things are done to the audio. I'm not aware of any way to look at two similar waveforms and divine how they might sound different. For that you'd do much better using an oscilloscope to check phase coherence between the left and right channels, or an FFT analyzer to look for frequency response differences.

All one could tell visually are gross differences. For example, if the highs are rolled off severely in one file, the waveform would be smoother and have less "activity" in time horizontally.

--Ethan

Quote:
I still can't believe the uber-cynic is arguing against leveling a CD player.

I still can't believe the uber-believer is arguing the importance of levering a CD player even after I proved that shaking and tilting mine while reading made no difference. You crossed that line Vigne.

--Ethan

Quote:

Quote:
Too many people have experienced the fact that the sound IS NOT identical from the same data.

Believe me Ethan. There are numerous people who have "even the most minimal grasp of logic" but who also know that the data can be identical whilst the sound is different !!!

Who are THESE people?

There are no "THESE" people! There are professionals and hobbyists with intelligence and open minds who don't play at different levels or ignore the possibility of placebo or collaborate with the devil.

May has made this point numerous times. Experienced listeners, reviewers and designers reach similar conclusions independent of one another in place and time. Dismissing the experiences of professionals and dedicated hobbyists alike out of hand is what happens when someone like you - who places predetermined conclusions ahead of perception - labels bullshit or a fraud those things they decide just can't happen. It is the laziness and dishonesty of people with a position they cannot release who insist everyone must be as deaf as they are.

Quote:

Quote:
LOGIC would tell you that if the sound is different, whilst the data is identical, then you have to look elsewhere for the explanation as to why the sound is different.

LOGIC would tell you that they are hearing things.

Logic would tell anyone you are not the person to be doing poorly constructed tests intentionally mis-designed so as not to prove anything.

Quote:
I miss nothing. It's just that you weren't clear if you meant files that are bit-for-bit identical or not. I did see you ask this earlier, but there's no good answer to how the waveform might change if various things are done to the audio. I'm not aware of any way to look at two similar waveforms and divine how they might sound different. For that you'd do much better using an oscilloscope to check phase coherence between the left and right channels, or an FFT analyzer to look for frequency response differences.

All one could tell visually are gross differences. For example, if the highs are rolled off severely in one file, the waveform would be smoother and have less "activity" in time horizontally.

Right, and you know everything. LOL!!! Don't try to pull that past me, Winer, I know you. Not that I've looked in your yard or Googled your name for false information I could post. I leave that up to the cretins who find that creepy sort of thing amusing.

So, no matter what changes occur in sound quality after the CD is demagnetized, these waveforms are useless as a comparison. This would make one more flaw in a "test" that is already riddled with errors. If changes do show up, then someone else is wrong this time.

Quote:
That's another of your biased opinions that would negate all of your answers for any reasonable person.

Man, I am such a jackass. Here I thought Jan was trying to be reasonable by asking a reasonable, if na

Quote:
I still can't believe the uber-believer is arguing the importance of levering a CD player even after I proved that shaking and tilting mine while reading made no difference. You crossed that line Vigne.

That really doesn't make sense. Leveling a CD player makes sense - whether you think it might sound better or not, it makes sense. Shaking your computer while watching the files transfer is incredibly ridiculous. Your last post is uber-ridiculous. You have the imagination of a third grader.

ROTFLMAO!

Geez, Winer!

It would be interesting to see if the analog output from a CD player is different after whatever treatment one applied.

Not that it can be done to satisfy anybody.

How about measuring the digital output of a transport in real time for comparing treatments?

The two sides will never meet, but it would be cool to see some cooperation on just what might be/could measured, rather than the Palestine"Israel failure to recognize the other side situation. I mean, if you can hear it, it should make you curious enough to want to learn more about it - it could lead to even better developments!

Ethan, pretend you believe that CD's could sound different, and then...how would you set about testing this?

Conversely, how would the "bits is not bits" people propose investigating this? Somewhere we should be able to move from 'just' listening to investigating what is actually happening.

Quote:
Man, I am such a jackass. Here I thought Jan was trying to be reasonable by asking a reasonable, if na

Quote:
Conversely, how would the "bits is not bits" people propose investigating this? Somewhere we should be able to move from 'just' listening to investigating what is actually happening.

I already have said I am not the person to come up with this answer. As May has noted on more than one occcasion, the arguments are still pitched thirty years after the cable issue was opened. The "cables are not cables" and "bits is not bits" listeners have only begun to scratch the surface of what better concepts of "why" might matter. Obviously, some things do matter and some people have the dedication to working out why.

The "bits is bits" and "cables is cables" levelers have no interest in finding any more answers than what they already know. That makes it convenient and simple for them to label everything as BS and snake oil without giving thought to the reasons why dedicated listeners perceive improvements. May has written about this more than once, its all about being inside a comfort zone or allowing yourself to step outside of what has always been comfortable and accepting that you might not find a ready answer.

I see people who perceive the improvements rendered by Belt devices trying to rationalize the "why" along conventional lines of reasoning which keeps them limited to their already existing knowledge even when they have to stretch their existing knowledge to its limits trying to fit answers into their comfortable known world.

I suspect geof, May and Frog would have better answers to your question than I can provide. I would go along with JA in accepting that somethings aren't necesarily going to make complete sense to me but that doesn't mean the results are not real. As I've said before, I have an Italian heritage that allows me to believe everything in the air and soil, food and drink, etc are of value.

Until an explanation comes along that places everything into a more complete concept, I see no reason not to accept the changes for what they are - perception is reality. Parma is not San Danielle, Chianti is not Asti and the Northern slope is not the Eastern valley. If time permits, then further exploration is good. Otherwise, this is a hobby that is about enjoying the music and not constantly being distracted by the how and why.

Quote:
The two sides will never meet, but it would be cool to see some cooperation on just what might be/could measured, rather than the Palestine"Israel failure to recognize the other side situation.

You are still under the mistaken notion that sharpeners care what levelers cannot perceive. Re-read your Dudley.

Quote:
It would be interesting to see if the analog output from a CD player is different after whatever treatment one applied. Not that it can be done to satisfy anybody.

The problem with trying to compare anything other than digital extractions is clock drift. Even when the CD music hasn't changed, every time you play a CD the D/A's crystal oscillator is at a slightly different frequency, and also changes over time. So if you load two passes into an audio editor to try to null them, they'll null only for a few seconds until the clocks drift apart. I did this recently for a cable test, and was able to null the files, but only for a few seconds before they drifted apart. That they nulled at all, even briefly, was enough to convince me that neither cable changed the sound compared to the other. After all, if one cable changed the sound compared to the other, the files wouldn't have nulled even briefly.

Quote:
How about measuring the digital output of a transport in real time for comparing treatments?

I think that might work because a digital stream is a series of numbers. You'd need not only both CDs - with and without "treatment" - but also two players so both could be recorded digitally at the same time. That might work. But then there's the problem of sync'ing. When you record digitally, the recorder derives the clock from the source. If you have two digital sources that are both free running and you sync to only one (which is the only choice), then the other source will click occasionally as a sample is dropped. But for the duration they are in sync you can probably do a null test.

Quote:
The two sides will never meet

Only when one or both sides is being unreasonable. The real problem is no matter what proof I might offer, believers will find a reason to dismiss it. And, likewise, I don't put much faith in non-blind listening tests when by all logic there should be no difference. I mean, really, demagnetizing CDs will change their sound? Not in this universe.

Quote:
pretend you believe that CD's could sound different, and then...how would you set about testing this?

Possibly by recording both at once digitally as explained above.

Quote:
how would the "bits is not bits" people propose investigating this?

First you'd have to convince me it's worth investigating. I know all too well that the same recording can sound very different just playing it twice in a row. For the umpteenth time, this is the real issue, not that demagnetizing CDs might possibly change the sound. And if we're still talking about demagnetizing, that can easily be tested via extraction. No need for analog comparisons or real time recording etc.

--Ethan

Quote:
How about measuring the digital output of a transport in real time for comparing treatments?

Come to think of it, recording digitally is the same as extracting. Either way it's a direct transfer of bits from here to there.

--Ethan

Quote:

Quote:
The two sides will never meet, but it would be cool to see some cooperation on just what might be/could measured, rather than the Palestine"Israel failure to recognize the other side situation.

You are still under the mistaken notion that sharpeners care what levelers cannot perceive. Re-read your Dudley.

I thought you said it was Robert Deutsch.

I was a VERY Dudleyesque piece!

Of course we care what each side thinks - or we wouldn't argue about it!

I figure, it would be odd to just leave it at "I hear it" without taking the next step to try and figure out why.

(No flames intended.)

Quote:
And, likewise, I don't put much faith in non-blind listening tests when by all logic there should be no difference.

Quote:
I know all too well that the same recording can sound very different just playing it twice in a row.

Quote:
Of course we care what each side thinks - or we wouldn't argue about it!

No, I only truly care about what I can hear, perceive and enjoy. I know well enough that the person sitting beside me is hearing something not exactly like what I am taking in. And the next person will hear something different than both of us. This is the "What concert did they attend?" smack in the head if you've never thought about it before. People are not the same and no one needs to be berated for what they hear, perceive or enjoy. If Winer thinks shaking his computer proves something, go ahead and knock yourself out, Winer. I have better things to do. It's obvious this ceased being about the music long ago with Winer, this is all about being the uber-cynic now. Who else would shake their computer or argue over leveling a CD player?

This is a personal experience with the music I enjoy and insisting that anyone else hear or prefer what I hear is futile. I have more than a few friends who enjoy audio and we all have different tastes. Even though we all have somewhat similar systems, everyone displays their own priorities in their selection of components and speakers - and enhancements to those components and speakers. I cannot imagine anyone here isn't in the same situation. Do any of you insist your friends hear what you hear or buy what you buy? I doubt it.

I do not care what you or Winer or FC, FS, ncdrawl, etc, can and cannot hear. I never cared what dup could not hear! As you say, no flame intended but the idea that we all must level what someone else levels is absurd. I've said that numerous times in the past and not that long ago. It is not about insisting you hear what I hear, it is about you (a communal "you" if need be) allowing me to hear and think what I please. Why that is so difficult for some people, I don't understand.

Quote:
It is not about insisting you hear what I hear, it is about you (a communal "you" if need be) allowing me to hear and think what I please. Why that is so difficult for some people, I don't understand.

I get what you're trying to say J.V. but it goes both ways.
I don't care if you hear what you say you hear, fine by me.

Saying we haven't figured out how this stuff works is the easy way out. If Ethan explains a very plausible way how the demag. tweak doesn't work, he gets insulted, yet none of the believers can explain in any meaningful way how it does work.

Trolls get so hung up on explanations.

I'm sorry if the truth hurts Geoff. Cheerio

If you mean am I hurt that you're a hung up troll, I guess I'm not too hurt. Bye, bye, troll.

Quote:
If you mean am I hurt that you're a hung up troll, I guess I'm not too hurt. Bye, bye, troll.

C'mon Geoff, you know the old "sticks and stones" saying.

I'm happy to listen to those who "believe" they hear sonic differences after a "demag" treatment. I "believe" that if the placebo affect works every time you perform the demag tweak, more power to ya". Cheerio. It's teatime.