Quote:
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.

First, "explaining" how something "doesn't work" is a bit ludicrous particularly as practiced by someone who isn't the slightest bit interested in finding out if something does work. You'll have to show me where this is actually done. Making the assumption nothing has changed simply because Winer doesn't know how to measure it only plays to a very small crowd. Not investigating anything at all is the really easy way out.

Now explaining how something does work, like GoogleEarth, so he can look in someone's front yard and posting fake information meant specifically to insult another forum member or constantly insulting another forum member's audio system or a soft porn video that exposes the hypocrisy of "helping abused women" deserves more than an another insult in return - but Winer is allowed to stay on the forum no matter.

Second, Winer doesn't give a moment's breath to how something does this or that, Winer insults everyone who is involved in this hobby with his tired, worn out uber-cynic act and his constant declarations of "bullshit", "fraud", etc. It is only the occasional uber-absurdity he unwittingly provides - such as the image of a white haired guy in his 60's vigorously shaking his computer while watching files load - that keeps Winer from being wholly McCarthyistic.

Nixonian? Undoubtedly so! Being on Winer's "enemys list" is a laugh a minute.

LOL! Truly, LOL!!!

Third, Winer can speak for himself. He doesn't need your help, only your little puppy dog licks to the back of his hand.

However, the arrogant concept of "believers" speaks for itself. You cannot even see what is in front of you. I am not the others so, if I as a hobbyist don't care to have some easy explanation or method to measure how a specific treatment or action operates, say, one of the Belt pens, that in no way means others do not have a workable explanation. Quite a few such explanations have been provided on this forum - though you've obviously ignored them - and they always receive the same welcome. What those explanations always receive is a group of naysayers who cannot get out of their little comfort zone to simply consider something fresh or different and who instead choose to insult that working explanation and all the professional reviewers and dedicated hobbyists who have found similar results and call all of them "charlatans", "snake oil salesmen", "liars" and so on. Invariably, the vast majority who choose to insult the possibility something might operate as explained haven't even taken the time to try what they ridicule or, like FC, they construct a device that can only show what they want it to show.

Has he done the listening part yet? Or has the waveform test Winer says can't indicate change already proven to him nothing has changed? No need to listen then, eh?

Go bone up on your Dudley.

Quote:
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.

Ethan, I crown you the ultimate sharpener!

You can hear differences in the same recording between plays!

That also implies one hell of an auditory memory, bud!

I assume, of course, you can prove this with DBT. (Hey, if YOU say it, DBT proof must be behind the thing, right?)

I can do the same thing. Sort of. Each time a CD or LP is played, I can tell you how it sounds, right now. The tough part is proving it. What I do is play it again and compare the recording to the first time I played it but not the second time, just to make sure how it sounded the first time. Then I can play it again and compare.

Dudes, if Ethan can hear differences between plays of the same disc played sequentially, he trumps all of us.

All bow to Ethan, King of the Sharpeners!

If you say there is not variation within the same recording between plays, then you are a pitiful leveler.

Of course, this raises Heraclitus

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"

The plaintive whine of the Troll:

"It's the palcebo effect! science won't allow it! It can't possibly work! it's all about belief, ritual and magic! It's psychological!."

Give my regards to Randi.

Quote:
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"

The plaintive whine of the Troll:

"It's the palcebo effect! science won't allow it! It can't possibly work! it's all about belief, ritual and magic! It's psychological!."

Give my regards to Randi.

Science does allow the placebo effect.

Some small bits of psychology are scientific.

Audio is magic.

Belief and ritual can be powerful.

I'm surprised you are against all those things.

Randi is a self-promoting freak. Frank S seems honestly interested in Hi Fi.

>>> "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."<<<

Ethan doesn't give a very plausible way of how the demag tweak doesn't work. He just says, categorically, that it cannot change the data, therefore it cannot change the sound !!! Followed by "it is bullshit", "it borders on fraud" !!
Saying Ethan gives a plausible reason why the demag tweaks doesn't work is like someone else saying that Frank S gives a plausible reason why the demag tweak doesn't work when he says "The imagination of those hearing differences are........well imagining things." And is like someone saying that BillB gives plausible reason why Clement Perry heard his sound improve after using a Schumann resonance device when BillB says it must "have been due to listening at a slightly higher volume level than previous listens"

THOSE are the easy ways out !!!!!!!!!!! Use those and you don't have to think further !!!!

OF COURSE it is a 'plausible reason' that people could be imagining things !!

OF COURSE it is a 'plausible reason' that Clement Perry could have been listening at a slightly higher level than previously.

But, how do those simplistic reasons take us any further forward ??????????????

Regards,
May Belt.

>>> "I mean, really, demagnetizing CDs will change their sound? Not in this universe." <<<

I mean, REALLY. That was some statement !!!!!!!!!!!!!! One minute you are insisting that demagnetizing CDs cannot change their data and the next moment you are automatically COUPLING that with the statement "demagnetizing CDs cannot change their SOUND"

The TWO are separate !!!!!!!!!!! There is a strong possibility that demagnetizing a CD CAN change the sound without changing the data !!! Don't you take any notice whatsoever of people's experiences ????

Regards,
May Belt.

>>> "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" <<<

Exactly. Just what is it you think Peter and I have been doing for the past 28 years ???????? If not taking that next step, and the next step and the next step after that to try to figure out why ??

Similarly to your "bolt out of the blue" moment with the laser lights, our "bolt out of the blue" moment occurred some 28 years ago, whilst we were actually investigating the opposite of what people usually investigate. I.e people usually start investigating when they have heard something unexpectedly 'improve' the sound - exactly as you did. Whereas we were investigating why certain metals (when used as conductors) 'sounded' worse than others (as well as investigating the opposite - why some metals 'sounded' better than others).
Shortly after this we then began to investigate Ivor Tiefenbrum's claim (in the early 1980s) that the 'sound' from the loudspeakers actually being played was adversely affected by the presence of any passive loudspeakers in the same room. AND that the 'sound' from the loudspeakers being played was adversely affected by the presence of a telephone in the same room. AND that the 'sound' from the loudspeakers being played was adversely affected by the presence of an electronic alarm watch in the same room. This claim by Ivor was the start of his campaign for "single speaker dem rooms" in Hi Fi retailers showrooms.

As we were also loudspeaker manufacturers and as reliant on Hi Fi retailers demonstrating, to the best of their ability and knowledge, OUR loudspeakers (as well as Ivor's and other manufacturer's loudspeakers) - then it was extremely important that we investigated to see if there was anything in Ivor's claims !!!!

It was during this time that we had our "bolt out of the blue" moment. We did something which took us completely by surprise - it ruined our sound !!!!

So, it was in investigating why our sound was suddenly worse (the opposite of most people who usually initially start their investigation because their sound got suddenly better) which led us along the path we have been along these past 28 years. In investigating why the sound had got worse, we eventually discovered how the sound could be 'improved'. As I usually describe it - pieces of the jigsaw gradually began to come together to create a coherent picture. I don't know HOW long it would have taken us without that 'chance event' but, as the saying goes, "chance favours a prepared mind". No better example of "chance favouring a prepared mind" than Alexander Fleming's discovery of what was eventually to be penicillin"

As I have said many times previously - our story is well known to the people who are interested in such things !!

As you have said, Buddha, "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!"

Regards,
May Belt.

Quote:
>>> "I mean, really, demagnetizing CDs will change their sound? Not in this universe." <<<

I mean, REALLY. That was some statement !!!!!!!!!!!!!! One minute you are insisting that demagnetizing CDs cannot change their data and the next moment you are automatically COUPLING that with the statement "demagnetizing CDs cannot change their SOUND"

The TWO are separate !!!!!!!!!!! There is a strong possibility that demagnetizing a CD CAN change the sound without changing the data !!! Don't you take any notice whatsoever of people's experiences ????

Regards,
May Belt.

Ethan does take notice. He is such a sharpener, he can hear how a recording varies from playback to playback. He said so, himself.

Why would he notice such a subtle thing if he weren't an ultrasharpener?

Ethan played trump.

Quote:
>>> "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."<<<

Ethan doesn't give a very plausible way of how the demag tweak doesn't work. He just says, categorically, that it cannot change the data, therefore it cannot change the sound !!! Followed by "it is bullshit", "it borders on fraud" !!
Saying Ethan gives a plausible reason why the demag tweaks doesn't work is like someone else saying that Frank S gives a plausible reason why the demag tweak doesn't work when he says "The imagination of those hearing differences are........well imagining things." And is like someone saying that BillB gives plausible reason why Clement Perry heard his sound improve after using a Schumann resonance device when BillB says it must "have been due to listening at a slightly higher volume level than previous listens"

THOSE are the easy ways out !!!!!!!!!!! Use those and you don't have to think further !!!!

OF COURSE it is a 'plausible reason' that people could be imagining things !!

OF COURSE it is a 'plausible reason' that Clement Perry could have been listening at a slightly higher level than previously.

But, how do those simplistic reasons take us any further forward ??????????????

Regards,
May Belt.

How about the tweak making it so Mr. Perry enjoyed the sound at a slightly higher level than before, thereby making a better impression on him regarding certain aspects of the sound?

Perhaps he did play it back a little louder because it sounded better that way after he performed the tweak.

You could both be right.

Quote:
Perhaps he did play it back a little louder because it sounded better that way after he performed the tweak.

You could both be right.

Possibly he played it a bit louder and then a bit softer and then really, really louder, got up and danced around the room, and then sat quietly while listening at a whisper because the improvements were so dramatic he wanted to make certain it was effective at all volume levels.

Or, possibly he did what any profesinal reviewer would do in that siotuation - he acted professionally. Not professionally as in "I already know this won't make any difference so I'll have to be convinced it's worth investigating" - we'll leave that up to those professionals of forty years who aren't interested in sound as much as their own uber-cynicism - but profesionally as in someone who has a duty to their readers to report what they hear and experience.

I see "he listened louder" replacing "placebo" as the next out for the naysayers.

Quote:

Quote:
Perhaps he did play it back a little louder because it sounded better that way after he performed the tweak.

You could both be right.

Possibly he played it a bit louder and then a bit softer and then really, really louder, got up and danced around the room, and then sat quietly while listening at a whisper because the improvements were so dramatic he wanted to make certain it was effective at all volume levels.

Or, possibly he did what any profesinal reviewer would do in that siotuation - he acted professionally. Not professionally as in "I already know this won't make any difference so I'll have to be convinced it's worth investigating" - we'll leave that up to those professionals of forty years who aren't interested in sound as much as their own uber-cynicism - but profesionally as in someone who has a duty to their readers to report what they hear and experience.

I see "he listened louder" replacing "placebo" as the next out for the naysayers.

Could be an out, but many times, if something improves the sound of a system (less glare, etc.) then people may tend to turn it up a little and get more out of a recording because whatever was holding them back now isn't.

Perhaps he did dance around the room. If he noticed and improvement, the music may have become more involving.

Maybe the tweak was good enough that he "just listened" for a while, too! Not professional, but excusable!

Really, Buddha? I can certainly understand listening louder for enjoyment of specific selections when there is less crap to listen through just as I can understand listening at softer levels when there is less crap in the way to listen beyond. My experience has generally inidacted average output levels go down, not up, when the system improves by way of greater clarity or reduced noise/distortion.

But your conjecture is a bit like saying the doctor gave the patient an extra bit of morphine because the physician was feeling good that day or had a bit too much coffee that morning. You too quickly accuse the reviewer of not acting professionally in this case because it fits a scenario you prefer.

If all of this comes down to human error, then why bother reading a magazine like Stereophile were everything would be a function of error? Or a magazine like the late, not much missed Stereo Review? If everything comes down to error, what saves the "objectivists" from making the same errors? If everything comes down to error, why bother at all? Is one professional differently disposed to not making errors than another due to their perspective on what they are testing? How so?

Going back to RD's article, and his introduction of digital photography into the discussion, if a comparison shows a higher noise level in one camera than another, is that due to error also? What is it that condemns one side and vindicates the other?

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:
Ethan, I crown you the ultimate sharpener!
You can hear differences in the same recording between plays!
That also implies one hell of an auditory memory, bud!
I assume, of course, you can prove this with DBT. (Hey, if YOU say it, DBT proof must be behind the thing, right?)

Winer, I crown you the ultimate leveler/hypocrite!!!

You have now added another variable to the numerous flaws possible in DBT's. Flaws that human nature and human error allow no matter how closely the listener is supervised or the test laid out. Add this to the idea that less than a 1" shift in head postion will negate all responses or the possibility you are listening just a bit louder and, along with all the other flaws to be found in such tests, there is very little a listener could expect to prove with repeated listening experiences in a DBT. When everything is fraught with error, how can any result be trusted?

This would seem to be the best proof JGH had it right way back when. By your own admission of course there is a high likelyhood there will be a difference. Subjective response is the trump card here. Everything else is too fragile to trust.

Quote:
Really, Buddha? I can certainly understand listening louder for enjoyment of specific selections when there is less crap to listen through just as I can understand listening at softer levels when there is less crap in the way to listen beyond. My experience has generally inidacted average output levels go down, not up, when the system improves by way of greater clarity or reduced noise/distortion.

But your conjecture is a bit like saying the doctor gave the patient an extra bit of morphine because the physician was feeling good that day or had a bit too much coffee that morning. You too quickly accuse the reviewer of not acting professionally in this case because it fits a scenario you prefer.

If all of this comes down to human error, then why bother reading a magazine like Stereophile were everything would be a function of error? Or a magazine like the late, not much missed Stereo Review? If everything comes down to error, what saves the "objectivists" from making the same errors? If everything comes down to error, why bother at all? Is one professional differently disposed to not making errors than another due to their perspective on what they are testing? How so?

Going back to RD's article, and his introduction of digital photography into the discussion, if a comparison shows a higher noise level in one camera than another, is that due to error also? What is it that condemns one side and vindicates the other?

Not accusing anybody of anything, Jan.

Just pointing out that if the tweak had a beneficial effect, then perhaps Frank's postulation about different playback levels may apply.

Do you kvetch like this when a reviewer says something like, "I found myself listening to an entire LP rather than my reference cut, and the next thing I knew, I found I had just been listening to the music for several hours?"

I take comments like that to be a good sign. For a period of time, the reviewer did put down his professional quill, which is great.

Sorry to see that moments of 'unprofessional' reviewing get to you like that. I do not consider that a sign of unprofessional behavior, I consider a valid retropsective report of the listening experience. The reviewer is easily excused for his rapture, and that serves to tell me about a product, too!

That morphine comment was pretty lame.

Quote:

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:
Ethan, I crown you the ultimate sharpener!
You can hear differences in the same recording between plays!
That also implies one hell of an auditory memory, bud!
I assume, of course, you can prove this with DBT. (Hey, if YOU say it, DBT proof must be behind the thing, right?)

Winer, I crown you the ultimate leveler/hypocrite!!!

You have now added another variable to the numerous flaws possible in DBT's. Flaws that human nature and human error allow no matter how closely the listener is supervised or the test laid out. Add this to the idea that less than a 1" shift in head postion will negate all responses or the possibility you are listening just a bit louder and, along with all the other flaws to be found in such tests, there is very little a listener could expect to prove with repeated listening experiences in a DBT. When everything is fraught with error, how can any result be trusted?

This would seem to be the best proof JGH had it right way back when. By your own admission of course there is a high likelyhood there will be a difference. Subjective response is the trump card here. Everything else is too fragile to trust.

Levelers listen to music. Sharpeners listen to gear.

Ethan can hear differences from playback to playback, and you are not on board with that? Doesn't happen to you, but it does to him?

Happens to me, sometimes. I think from one play to another I sometimes attend to different aspects of the recording.

You are right, it makes DBT a poor choice of validation. We tend to have slightly wandering attention even when we are trying to focus on one thing. Sometimes, the bass line may capture our notice, somtimes another part - it does make for a different experience every time.

Have you ever listened on a different system or a different day and 'discovered' something in the recording you hadn't noticed before? I have. It may be that something was there all along, but it took listening in a different set up or at a different time before we locked on to it. Kind of fun.

"Science does allow the placebo effect.

Some small bits of psychology are scientific.

Audio is magic.

Belief and ritual can be powerful.

I'm surprised you are against all those things."

Ah, the mellow chorus of theTroll...some more twisted logic for the peanut gallery that's supposed to mean who knows what.

"Frank S seems honestly interested in Hi Fi." Honestly, now you're just being ridiculous.

Quote:
Ethan, I crown you the ultimate sharpener! You can hear differences in the same recording between plays! Dudes, if Ethan can hear differences between plays of the same disc played sequentially, he trumps all of us. All bow to Ethan, King of the Sharpeners!

LOL! That wasn't the way I meant it, but I gladly accept your honor Sir Buddha. I always knew my hearing and musical acuity are far better than so many of the non-musician non-engineer plebian pretenders who post to this forum. I don't have to name them. We all know who they are - the no-talent hacks with nary an accomplishment between them but they express strong opinions on music and audio anyway. Take that you cretins. My listening skills surpass all of you put together.

Damn Buddha, I feel so much better. Thanks man!

Quote:
I assume, of course, you can prove this with DBT.

Of course! I prove it the very same way Jan and KBK and May and Geoff "prove" their "points" to me. Because I say so! Ain't nuttin' else needed. It's true because I proclaim it The Truth.

--Ethan

Quote:
"Science does allow the placebo effect.

Some small bits of psychology are scientific.

Audio is magic.

Belief and ritual can be powerful.

I'm surprised you are against all those things."

Ah, the mellow chorus of theTroll...some more twisted logic for the peanut gallery that's supposed to mean who knows what.

Oh, brother.

Yes, unless their is unblinking agreement, it is a zero sum game.

We are a complex stew, probably all these things come into play - including really hearing things.

All or none at either end of the spectrum. Yeah, that's the ticket.

"Trolling," "trawling," lots of overlap in this hobby!

Quote:
Just pointing out that if the tweak had a beneficial effect, then perhaps Frank's postulation about different playback levels may apply.

Awwwww, Buddha, this is what I said, any professional worth their stars and bars attends to the details and does not take off on goofy flights of erroneous judgement just because the tweak was sooooooo effective. Of course we all make errors, Winer admitted to missed set ups in controls (though now he claims he can hear a 1/2dB variation without fail) and everyone has done something that later is found to be in error. However, if there is a thing such as professionalism, then the reviewer is careful not to let those instances interfere with their work. Details are attended to before the reviewing process is started. Do you really doubt that? If errors are discovered during the review process, do you suppose a decent reviewer just reports what was found without checking? Is that what you think accounts for Stereohile's review staff liking different products?

About what percentage of the time do you suppose a magazine reviewer or a product designer such as sas or even Conrad Johnson reports a result based on errors made during the review process? Maybe your laser's effects at CES were all due to errors. Someone turned up the volume just at the moment you fired up the light. And nothing really happened? Maybe we should all be listening to a Bose WaveMachine because everything else is too prone to errors?

Quote:
Do you kvetch like this when a reviewer says something like, "I found myself listening to an entire LP rather than my reference cut, and the next thing I knew, I found I had just been listening to the music for several hours?"

I take comments like that to be a good sign. For a period of time, the reviewer did put down his professional quill, which is great.

Sorry to see that moments of 'unprofessional' reviewing get to you like that. I do not consider that a sign of unprofessional behavior, I consider a valid retropsective report of the listening experience. The reviewer is easily excused for his rapture, and that serves to tell me about a product, too!

Buddha, this is why giving you something to read is dangerous, you don't read the same thing everyone else does and you make up stuff to suit your needs. Let's take a Stereophile reviewer who reports he/she got lost in the music, do you honestly believe that would be because they turned the volume up too high before they began the listening comparison?

I suppose you think all this is just a game of chance and everythng can be swept away by an excuse for why it couldn't have been real? Honestly, Buddha, do be honest about this for awhile. What you posted isn't what I said. But now you've added another layer of falsehood here that makes the claim of error laiden reviewing even more absurd.

The physician comment was in keeping with the absurdity of your post. Professionals of all stripes are expected to do what professionals do - act in a professional manner.

Quote:
... the no-talent hacks with nary an accomplishment between them ...

I'll take your name calling personally and note a few of my accomplishments.

I don't become so obssesed with someone on an audio forum that I Google their personal information and I don't post what I find and I most especially do not post the shit that is just balatantly false in a pathetic attempt to insult the other member.

I don't use GoogleEarth to look in the other member's yard and I don't complain that I can't see in their house.

I don't repeatedly attack another member's audio system.

And I most particularly do not make cheesy, soft porn videos while suggesting I support abused women.

I don't haunt dozens of audio forums daily in search of a competitor I can assail and insult.

If I have accomplished nothing else in my life, I am very proud of those things I haven't done.

I don't think I'd be very proud of myself if I had done them.

But then, thankfully, I am not you.

Quote:
Levelers listen to music. Sharpeners listen to gear.

Made up crap. Just simply made up crap.

If it were true, then your Ultimate Sharpener, Winer, doesn't listen to music, only equipment, and, therefore, has nothing to contribute to a discussion about how CD demagnetization benefits music reproduction.

Hmmmmmmm, maybe you're closer to the truth than I at first gave you credit?

Quote:

Quote:
Levelers listen to music. Sharpeners listen to gear.

Made up crap. Just simply made up crap.

If it were true, then your Ultimate Sharpener, Winer, doesn't listen to music, only equipment, and, therefore, has nothing to contribute to a discussion about how CD demagnetization benefits music reproduction.

Hmmmmmmm, maybe you're closer to the truth than I at first gave you credit?

Jan, or would you prefer Vigne? The terms 'sharpener' and leveler' are made up crap. Were you using them a month ago? They are hot off the press, brand new terms. "Fuzzy" and "woodie" are made up terms, too.

You are awfully fired up for a guy who has yet to find his demagnetizer in his junk drawer! Shouldn't you try a tweak before endorsing it?

You use full range drivers...try placing a CD against the magnet at the back of the voice coil overnight. See if it makes a difference.

Since you won't discuss tweak results, I'll just say that some people can tell the difference between doing that with the label facing the magnet vs. the clear side.

You can use a touch of Blu Tak right at the spindle hole to hold the disc in place.

If we are going to keep yacking about demagnetizing, part of the fun is exploring magnetizing discs, too! Or, you could just leave it to others who are out there trying things to tell you what your opinion is.

So, I mentioned an experience similar to Ethan's, with a recording sounding different from play to play. Have you ever noticed that?

We're doing all the sharing of experiences while you snipe.

"Science does allow the placebo effect.
Some small bits of psychology are scientific.
Audio is magic.
Belief and ritual can be powerful.
I'm surprised you are against all those things."

Ah, the mellow chorus of theTroll...some more twisted logic for the peanut gallery that's supposed to mean who knows what.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, brother.
Yes, unless their is unblinking agreement, it is a zero sum game.
We are a complex stew, probably all these things come into play - including really hearing things.
All or none at either end of the spectrum. Yeah, that's the ticket.
"Trolling," "trawling," lots of overlap in this hobby!

More troll stuff. You can dress a donkey up in a dress but it's still a donkey.

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

Quote:
"Science does allow the placebo effect.
Some small bits of psychology are scientific.
Audio is magic.
Belief and ritual can be powerful.
I'm surprised you are against all those things."

Ah, the mellow chorus of theTroll...some more twisted logic for the peanut gallery that's supposed to mean who knows what.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, brother.
Yes, unless their is unblinking agreement, it is a zero sum game.
We are a complex stew, probably all these things come into play - including really hearing things.
All or none at either end of the spectrum. Yeah, that's the ticket.
"Trolling," "trawling," lots of overlap in this hobby!

More troll stuff. You can dress a donkey up in a dress but it's still a donkey.

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

Yup, BT Barnum in another man's clothing is still PT Barnum, too.

Too complex to put the human in the equation, eh? Keep trying, maybe you'll catch up!

Quote:

Jan, or would you prefer Vigne? The terms 'sharpener' and leveler' are made up crap. Were you using them a month ago? They are hot off the press, brand new terms. "Fuzzy" and "woodie" are made up terms, too.

You are awfully fired up for a guy who has yet to find his demagnetizer in his junk drawer! Shouldn't you try a tweak before endorsing it?

You use full range drivers...try placing a CD against the magnet at the back of the voice coil overnight. See if it makes a difference.

Since you won't discuss tweak results, I'll just say that some people can tell the difference between doing that with the label facing the magnet vs. the clear side.

You can use a touch of Blu Tak right at the spindle hole to hold the disc in place.

If we are going to keep yacking about demagnetizing, part of the fun is exploring magnetizing discs, too! Or, you could just leave it to others who are out there trying things to tell you what your opinion is.

So, I mentioned an experience similar to Ethan's, with a recording sounding different from play to play. Have you ever noticed that?

We're doing all the sharing of experiences while you snipe.

Excellent post Buddha! I've duly noted the high points of your excellent post, thank you.

Quote:
Excellent post Buddha! I've duly noted the high points of your excellent post, thank you.

Agreed fully with all those high points.

I see through you like you were made of glass.

Quote:
I see through you like you were made of glass.

Likewise, amigo!

Quote:
I see through you like you were made of glass.

Would that be single pane, double pane, or shatterproof? Everything is tweakable.....right. Cheerio.

"Would that be single pane, double pane, or shatterproof?"

Frank, in your case double pain. In my case, shatterproof.

Ta ta, Troll

Quote:
"Would that be single pane, double pane, or shatterproof?"

Frank, in your case double pain. In my case, shatterproof.

Ta ta, Troll

Geoff, You never disappoint. Thanks for the clarification and compliment.

Quote:
Jan, or would you prefer Vigne? The terms 'sharpener' and leveler' are made up crap. Were you using them a month ago? They are hot off the press, brand new terms. "Fuzzy" and "woodie" are made up terms, too.

You are awfully fired up for a guy who has yet to find his demagnetizer in his junk drawer! Shouldn't you try a tweak before endorsing it?

I repeat ...

Quote:
Buddha, this is why giving you something to read is dangerous, you don't read the same thing everyone else does and you make up stuff to suit your needs.

So, if "sharpener" and "leveler" are all made up - thankfully not by you this time - is Winer now not the Ulitmate Sharpener because you just made up the title? Or because Winer is made up? If he is not The Ultimate Sharpener, just what is he?

(Hint: you're allowed to pull from sources such as this ...

Quote:
I don't become so obssesed with someone on an audio forum that I Google their personal information and I don't post what I find and I most especially do not post the shit that is just balatantly false in a pathetic attempt to insult the other member.

I don't use GoogleEarth to look in the other member's yard and I don't complain that I can't see in their house.

I don't repeatedly attack another member's audio system.

And I most particularly do not make cheesy, soft porn videos while suggesting I support abused women.

I don't haunt dozens of audio forums daily in search of a competitor I can assail and insult.

Does that help? You might begin your reply with words like "pathetic" and "creep". But, really, you go ahead and use your own made up words, they're always so much fun to knock down.)

Quote:
That wasn't the way I meant it, but I gladly accept your honor Sir Buddha.

Ethan

Oooooooooh, you're both going to have something to be sorry about now.

OK, that's over and done with, let's get back to the real work here before you start with your usual insults that always come when you're backed into a corner.

I posted this in response to your absurdities ..

Quote:
However, if there is a thing such as professionalism, then the reviewer is careful not to let those instances interfere with their work. Details are attended to before the reviewing process is started. Do you really doubt that? If errors are discovered during the review process, do you suppose a decent reviewer just reports what was found without checking? Is that what you think accounts for Stereohile's review staff liking different products?

About what percentage of the time do you suppose a magazine reviewer or a product designer such as sas or even Conrad Johnson reports a result based on errors made during the review process? Maybe your laser's effects at CES were all due to errors. Someone turned up the volume just at the moment you fired up the light. And nothing really happened? Maybe we should all be listening to a Bose WaveMachine because everything else is too prone to errors?

Let's take a Stereophile reviewer who reports he/she got lost in the music, do you honestly believe that would be because they turned the volume up too high before they began the listening comparison?

This is important stuff here, Buddha - or would you prefer "booooooo'd"HA!"?

This is your argument right? You want to believe that professional audio reviewers writing for an international magazine such as Stereophile or any of the other major publications cannot be trusted due to their blatant negligence with details. Isn't that your argument?

It was your argument back here when you posted this ...

Quote:
Perhaps he did play it back a little louder because it sounded better that way after he performed the tweak.

And here ...

Quote:

Could be an out, but many times, if something improves the sound of a system (less glare, etc.) then people may tend to turn it up a little and get more out of a recording because whatever was holding them back now isn't.

Perhaps he did dance around the room. If he noticed and improvement, the music may have become more involving.

Maybe the tweak was good enough that he "just listened" for a while, too! Not professional, but excusable!

And even when you posted this ...

Quote:
Just pointing out that if the tweak had a beneficial effect, then perhaps Frank's postulation about different playback levels may apply.

(I took the liberty of highlighting the important parts.)

So just what is your position on this, Buddha? It's one more of those things that's relevant to this discussion.

(Hint: My experience with the Belt Treatments is not relevant, so don't go there.)

Vigne, just more crazy talk.

You are the surface noise on the LP of the thread.

As David Byrne sang..."You're talking alot, but you aren't saying anything."

So, now you are the thread policeman about talking about magnetic phenomenon and CD playback, belligerently defending a tweak you have not tried.

You're so screwed up right now and off topic, there is no redemption for you.

No need to tell us about it, but go actually try some of this stuff. Poseur.

So, Vigne's monkey screeching and poo flinging aside...

I wonder if there is something in common between this demagnetizing and remagnetizing both having a positive effect.

With demagnetizing, we are supposedly taking a partially 'predominant' magnetic field and are reducing/eliminating it. Maiking a more uniform field.

With remagnetizing, we'd be taking a partially magnetized disc and giving it a uniformly set orientation, which would also be homogenous.

Remagnetized and demagnetized CD's both have more uniform fields than the partially magnetized pre-treatment disc.

Both ends of the spectrum have a uniformity in common.

Now, for remagnetizing, the sound seems to be better when remagnetized with the label facing the magnet.

The uniform magnetic polarity seems to sound better when facing away from the laser.

In fact, it sounds better than demagnteized. I wonder why that would be?

ROTFLMF'ingAO!!!!!

Well, at least you haven't started drinkin' and resorting to the really ugly insults.

Yet.

Boooooo'd"HA"!, you made this an issue.

This is highly relevant to the posts May has made on this forum. There is a level of professionalism that is expected of audio reviewers for major magazines, is there not? Professionals are supposed to conduct themself in a professional manner, are they not? I suspect a reviewer who misleads their readers on a consistent basis will not be a reviewer for long. Would you agree?

It's only fair to play the little game you started.

Do you seriously believe reviewers are not acting in a professional manner that would render their writings useless due to negligent errors?

If a reviewer has a level of professionalism they hold true, wouldn't that make their efforts all the more interesting when they all agree to how a component or a treatment affects the sound quality?

If multiple reviewers are diligent in their efforts and they independently report similar findings, should not some credence be given to those efforts and the results?

C'mon, guy, you started this. Don't weenie out now. This is important stuff that goes back to the "room treatment size" thread. This is a point May has tried to get into your head for years now.

Tell us. And don't just make up some crap.

Everyone is welcome to participate. Are reviewers liars? Are they not professionals who can be trusted to conduct themself in a professional manner? If you don't believe they are reliable sources of information, why are you here?

I had you all wrong, but Buddha straightened me out: "Frank S seems honestly interested in Hi Fi."

And that's good enuff for me.

Quote:
ROTFLMF'ingAO!!!!!

Well, at least you haven't started drinkin' and resorting to the really ugly insults.

Yet.

Boooooo'd"HA"!, you made this an issue.

This is highly relevant to the posts May has made on this forum. There is a level of professionalism that is expected of audio reviewers for major magazines, is there not? Professionals are supposed to conduct themself in a professional manner, are they not? I suspect a reviewer who misleads their readers on a consistent basis will not be a reviewer for long. Would you agree?

It's only fair to play the little game you started.

Do you seriously believe reviewers are not acting in a professional manner that would render their writings useless due to negligent errors?

If a reviewer has a level of professionalism they hold true, wouldn't that make their efforts all the more interesting when they all agree to how a component or a treatment affects the sound quality?

If multiple reviewers are diligent in their efforts and they independently report similar findings, should not some credence be given to those efforts and the results?

C'mon, guy, you started this. Don't weenie out now. This is important stuff that goes back to the "room treatment size" thread. This is a point May has tried to get into your head for years now.

Tell us. And don't just make up some crap.

Everyone is welcome to participate. Are reviewers liars? Are they not professionals who can be trusted to conduct themself in a professional manner? If you don't believe they are reliable sources of information, why are you here?

Vigne, your pollution grows wearying.

Get on topic.

Frank S postulated about different listening levels.

I mentioned that for a tweak, an 'after' listen may permit enjoyment at different listening levels.

That was the whole schmear, missy.

You are acting like a petulant teenage girl at this point.

Man up, Vigne.

There's a topic here you are avoiding.

Maybe you could go root around your closet and take part in the hobby.

There's a perfectly fine 'does work' / 'desn't work' topic at play and your parrot sounds are worthless. Actually, that's an insult to worthless. Sub-worthless.

Can you even talk about a tweak topic?

Prove you can and do it.

Your thesis:

"With demagnetizing, we are supposedly taking a partially 'predominant' magnetic field and are reducing/eliminating it. Maiking a more uniform field.

With remagnetizing, we'd be taking a partially magnetized disc and giving it a uniformly set orientation, which would also be homogenous.Remagnetized and demagnetized CD's both have more uniform fields than the partially magnetized pre-treatment disc.

Both ends of the spectrum have a uniformity in common."
...................

Unfortunately for your theory, an unmagnetized/demagnetized object has no uniformity of the fields of the atoms and therefore no field itself. The fields of the atoms of the demagnetized object are randomly distributed, by definition. So there's total NON-uniformity of fields of the atoms; the object has no field and the object is not "homogeneous."

Guess we can dispense with the "Both ends of the spectrum have a uniformity in common" part.

Quote:
...the object has no field...

Exaclty.

No field and a unified field are more similar in uniformity than an undemagnetized random field.

Either treatment is creating a more regular field.

Right you are!

Sorry to be off topic, but I keep seeing this laser light thing mentioned and can find no reference to it.

Can someone point me to the thread or Buddha, can you pm me about it? Interested, for sure.

CES 2008 show coverage. Scroll about halfway down to...

NFS Goes Green and the three posts after.

RG

You still have it wrong. The partially magnetized object is more uniform than an unmagnetized object. The unmagnetized object has *no field* and is totally non-uniform. You know, electron spin of the electrons and all that.

Quote:
You still have it wrong. The partially magnetized object is more uniform than an unmagnetized object. The unmagnetized object has *no field* and is totally non-uniform. You know, electron spin of the electrons and all that.

Semantics. Both the demegnetized disc and a fully magnetized disc have similarity via a unified lack of field or a fully unified field.

The partially magnetized disc is intermediate.

"Both the demegnetized disc and a fully magnetized disc have similarity via a unified lack of field or a fully unified field."

It's not semantics. They are totally *dissimilar.* In fact they are the *opposite.* "White has a similarity to Black in that White is the opposite of Black," would be your way of saying it.

Quote:
"Both the demegnetized disc and a fully magnetized disc have similarity via a unified lack of field or a fully unified field."

It's not semantics. They are totally *dissimilar.* In fact they are the *opposite.* "White has a similarity to Black in that White is the opposite of Black," would be your way of saying it.

Wow, aren't you a dogmatist! I'd expect a more open look at things from you, Geoff!

White/black is good.

White is a uniform lack of color and black is the uniform presence of all color, paint-wise; or white is the presence of all colors and black is the absence of all colors, light-wise.

Both are symmetrical states in that way.

They are conceptually similar, probably accounting for how remagnetized discs sound as good, or better, than demagnetized.

Quote:
There's a perfectly fine 'does work' / 'desn't work' topic at play ...

There certainly is! A topic you introduced. Actually a topic May intoduced long ago.

OK, look, I know this is embarrassing for you to find yourself trapped by semantics everywhere you turn. So I'll just supply the appropriate answers for you.

'kay?

Let's start with the easy stuff ...

Quote:
There is a level of professionalism that is expected of audio reviewers for major magazines, is there not?

Why of course there is, Jan, how brilliant of you to point out just how ignorant I have been. Thank you ever so much. I don't know how I'd be able to draw breath without your constant assistance.

Quote:
Professionals are supposed to conduct themself in a professional manner, are they not?

Well, of course they are, that's what made your physician reference so unmistakably brilliant and timely. Naturally, since I do not conduct myself as a professional, I don't claim any professional affiliation and pull my collar up around my face when walking past a Starbucks for fear those professionals might ridicule me and hurt my feelings.

Quote:
I suspect a reviewer who misleads their readers on a consistent basis will not be a reviewer for long. Would you agree?

Uhhhh, ... I don't understand the question. Could you put it in simpler words?

Quote:
Do you seriously believe reviewers are not acting in a professional manner that would render their writings useless due to negligent errors?

No, not really but I was out of other stupid ideas at the time and I was hoping no one as smart as you would catch on. Geeez, am I embarrassed! Can you forgive me?

Quote:
If multiple reviewers are diligent in their efforts and they independently report similar findings, should not some credence be given to those efforts and the results?

You know what?

I don't understand again. Could you try to ... oh, wait, I get it! I would add an onion.

Quote:

If multiple reviewers are diligent in their efforts and they independently report similar findings, should not some credence be given to those efforts and the results?

I am soooooooo tired. Has anybody seen my teddy? He's about so high and has the cutest nose.

Great answers, guy, some of your best ever!

Quote:
White is a uniform lack of color and black is the uniform presence of all color, paint-wise; or white is the presence of all colors and black is the absence of all colors, light-wise.

Nope, either way, white is the reflection of all visible wavelengths and black is the absorption of the same. There is no "presence of color" only the perception of color. Ask your dog.

Vigne seems to be replying to a post of mine.

Vigne, to save you the typing, I have taken the advice of others and come to realize "ignorevigne is bliss."

Maybe we can talk manetism around your road block now!

Ciao.

"Wow, aren't you a dogmatist! I'd expect a more open look at things from you, Geoff!"

By "a more open look" what you really mean is you want me to agree with your twisted logic. Sorry to disappoint you.

Quote:

Vigne, to save you the typing, I have taken the advice of others and come to realize "ignorevigne is bliss."

Awwwww, was it the "teddy" comment that broke your back?

boooooood"Ha!", you get more Republican every day. Now you're not going to talk to anyone who disagrees with you. What a life!

The high=styerical part is, he thinks that for the last twenty pages we've actually been discussing CD demagnetization.

It's remarkable that people enter a discussion forum so dead set against discussion.

Doesn't really matter since none of them are very good at this "discussion forum "stuff in the first place.

Would someone tell booooood"ha" I still see him and his teddy is on the sofa where they both slept last night.