| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
I take a multivitamin, creatine monohydrate, whey protein, and that is pretty much it. What were you under the influence of when you designed that "teleport" tweak?
ayahuasca?
"I take a multivitamin, creatine monohydrate, whey protein, and that is pretty much it."
I'd check the label a little more closely on the creatine monohydrate, if you know what I mean.
"What were you under the influence of when you designed that "teleport" tweak?
Ayahuasca?"
Geshundheit!
Ummmmm, that would be you. Have you already forgotten? I asked if you pissed in everyone's Cherios just to have something to do?
Do you?
http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/
A classic.
Awesome. Now I finally know what Geoff looks like.
--Ethan
Errrrm, Ethan, that couldn't be geoff_kait. The person in the pictures is surrounded by scientific instruments, not clocks showing different times and jars of pebbles.
I just posted it as it was amusing, to say the least.
As for pebbles and CD demagnetizing... well.
The demag works, but as a induction consideration, for all the reasons I outlined at the start of the thread. If you can't see it or hear it--it really is your problem, not mine.
your brain-your issue.
As for the pebbles, I've no idea, but I'm certainly game for trying them. All kinds of possibilities of why and how they work, if indeed they do as stated. I don't doubt it, I've never tried it.
The small thing, in this case..that I have over you two, is that I'm always tempted to step down to your level for your behaviour is insulting on this forum-and others. But in this moment, I will not. Specifically -YOU- can be a problem, Ethan. Across multiple forums.
Fresh, I've no idea if you do such things elsewhere or not. However, in your case, at least you have attempted to be fair in your own way at times. To be fair, so has Ethan, at times.
However, both of you repeatedly use your ignorance as a weapon against us and yourselves on occasion - and it is nearly frightening to see, for it is a blind activity to those who can see it for what it is. Bull in a china shop behaviour. You embarrass yourselves, and you don't even know it.
It is as if you want your fantasy, your desire fulfilled- and you attempt to anger us to responding in kind so you can be filled with your own self-righteous bullshit and respond in kind. This is very sick, at best.
We all do these sorts of things, in our own way, even down to how we handle integrating with the doorman at a hotel.
The problem is that you two, here, are 'making strange' in a way that is obvious to the rest of us.
We are audiophiles, we train ourselves and our hearing..to hear these effects and then find ways to make our audio systems better through trying to understand these things.
There is no better scientific approach that is possible, under our given circumstances.
The problem is that you two don't seemingly have a single clue how cutting edge science is performed, in the given specialty. Or, how the given layman can get himself to a good sounding audio system.
And Fresh, FYI, I listen to music about 10 to 14 hours per day. 7 days a week.
The reality is that both of you have no comeback here. You never did.
Both of you have a giant red FAIL stamped onto your foreheads on this one--and the origin of the mark is inside your heads.
It is clear to the rest of us that it is out of your capacity to see it for what it is. To see what this situation and your response to it really is. I'm sorry to have to deliver that news to you, but it happens to all of us, at times.
This time it is your turn.
If you accept that, perhaps you might do better next time. However, it is doubtful that you will accept it, as you each have too much weighting of your psychological makeup in a specific direction..to chance endangering your ego mechanism .. to ever let this thing slip in or sink into your brains.
It is not a difficult call to say that both of you will likely not see or understand most of this reply and will ignore it.
I always understand your replies KBK, they have a similar tone to Jans, usually without personal insults.
Your attitude is that all tweaks work and it's up to anyone who disagrees, to prove that it does not work. Saying it works is easy, you just invoke a load of gushy HiFi reviewer hyperbole. Provided these words conform to the Audiophile lexicon, you, or anyone else, is instantly believed by those who desire to spend more money on their hobby. Some of the products I have seen just lately are such utter bunkum that they could only appeal to those who are utterly ignorant of electrical theory or any science associated with the electronic reproduction of sound.
I took up the challenge to see if a controlled experiment would yield the effects that you originally posted. My ears are not those of a dull, uncomprehending Joe Public. I use my ears every day in my work, as you claim to do also. I don't count myself as an Audiophile because that conjures up a very scary picture to me. People who throw money away on a never ending search for something that always seems to elude them, no matter how far down the rabbit hole they go.
My experiment yielded nothing that I could perceive. I put a good deal of effort into it and even spent some time and money setting it up. Your attitude is that the bias you perceive I have, has prevented me from hearing the astounding benefits yielded by using an AC electromagnetic field to inductively heat the data layer of an audio CD.
Who's bulshitting who here?? You took one CD, applied a demagnetizer to it in an unspecified way, and then claimed to hear a beneficial change. Imagine if it had been detrimental, then we would never have heard about your experiment, I guess.
What is is it about you guys? You sell tweak gear and use words like "quantum" and manifold other scientific terms, but if someone applies a test to your claims you get all huffy and hostile! This is a public forum here and I will express my opinions as often as I please and I expect to be able to do that indefinitely as long as I stick to the forum rules. I don't see this forum as your private playground or the turf of the tweak makers who are on the prowl for suckers. I'm quite happy to lower myself to the level of those who use mock science to try to shift hokey products. I find it amusing at times.
The "weighting of your psychological makeup" comment is a classic diversion. You're attempting to switch the subject away from the topic, because you're not making any progress with your opinions and beliefs.
Finally, for your information I do not and have never levelled a personal insult in the vein of "you are a st__d bag of s__t" or anything of that nature. I have made a few "snake oil" accusations but that's directed at people selling what I perceive to be bogus products.
Knowing that I get under your skin, and that of others who promote stupid, expensive and unnecessary devices will ensure my continued participation on the forum.
To those who are interested. I'm sorry I havn't had the time to post the images of the waveforms from my experiment I will attempt to get them sorted out soon. I still don't know which disc is which.
Interesting response from FC, wouldn't you say? You address two people individually and FC repeatedly attacks an entire group.
No blind biases to be found there, eh?
Ya gotta love the "I put a good deal of effort into it and even spent some time and money setting it up". I suppose the $2 CD's were a ball buster. And since he conducted the actual listening test by himself, I would imagine his wife told him she was fed up with his BS.
"Some of the products I have seen just lately are such utter bunkum that they could only appeal to those who are utterly ignorant of electrical theory or any science associated with the electronic reproduction of sound."
--- Interesting theory, but quite untrue. Many people who have invested time and money in "outlandish tweaks" have degrees and advanced degrees in electronics, physics and other subjects directly related to audio reproduction. Your theory is an excellent example of a Strawman Argument frequently used by dyed in the wool naysayers who don't even realize it's a logical fallacy.
"People who throw money away on a never ending search for something that always seems to elude them, no matter how far down the rabbit hole they go."
-- Wishful thinking on your part. There are plenty of people who have made great strides with tweaks.
"My experiment yielded nothing that I could perceive."
-- Your negative results don't necessarily prove anything. You dismiss all the folks who get positive results, why should your experiment be chosen over the others? Ans: no reason.
"I put a good deal of effort into it and even spent some time and money setting it up."
-- So what? If effort, time and money were the criteria for excellence in any endeavor we'd all be millionaires.
"What is is it about you guys? You sell tweak gear and use words like "quantum" and manifold other scientific terms, but if someone applies a test to your claims you get all huffy and hostile!"
-- I don't see anyone getting huffy and hostile except the stubborn Naysayers. In fact, your entire post is pretty huffy, now that you mention it. And anyone is free to test anyone's claims. Knock yourself out. A little nervous about the word Quantum, eh? We see that a lot.
"This is a public forum here and I will express my opinions as often as I please and I expect to be able to do that indefinitely as long as I stick to the forum rules."
-- Even though those opinions might be narrow minded and backward. Yup, that's within the forum rules. :-)
"I don't see this forum as your private playground or the turf of the tweak makers who are on the prowl for suckers. I'm quite happy to lower myself to the level of those who use mock science to try to shift hokey products."
-- Well, this is the Tweaks and Tips forum, after all. You can expect some difference of opinion to your narrow, uninformed view of the subject matter. You're lowering yourself to your own level by adapting such a knuckle-dragging attitude.
"I have made a few "snake oil" accusations but that's directed at people selling what I perceive to be bogus products."
-- I'm sure we're all very impressed with your perception skills. :-)
"Knowing that I get under your skin, and that of others who promote stupid, expensive and unnecessary devices will ensure my continued participation on the forum."
-- What the hell, why not? It's a democracy and always good to hear what the other side comes up with. I just wish it were funnier, as it would be more entertaining.
"I still don't know which disc is which."
-- Surprise, surprise.
Would you count yourself amongst these people Geoff? You claim on this http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39318 forum :
So as a highly qualified and mature scientist, you'd be able to provide us with a full explanation of how your products work, using scientific principles and providing formulae and calculations.
Or maybe that would cause our brains to implode with a quantum "POP".
You have a vested interest in bathing the ears of potential customers in lashings of pseudo science in order to shift product. Your imbecilic posting of pulp science fiction novel covers and pictures of actors dressed as cowboys has not derailed this thread to the extent that you would have liked. All you have proven is your complete disregard for the topic under discussion. That is the response of an ignoramus. Why can't you participate in the thread by offering a scientists viewpoint? Aren't you a scientist?
KBK has retreated into his cave to shout "no fair!" as he did on the liquid cables thread. He started this thing off and he's really ticked off that I've chosen to TEST his assertions. So far he hasn't had the thread moved or beg for it to be closed as he did on the liquid cable thread. Is it so difficult to hear an opinion that doesn't agree with your own? Maybe an "Audiophile" on this forum could repeat my experiment and report his/her findings?
I will continue to search for references to Geoff Kait in regards to his claims to have worked for NASA, FAA and anything else. So far the only references on the internet lead to audio forums or hifi sites. Interesting.
Here are the comparisons of the waveforms I promised. My method has been to overlay the two waveforms as they display in Adobe Audition. One is green and the other pink, when the pink is overlayed and reduced to 50% opacity, the result is a grey waveform. I have also provided some overlayed/shifted pictures so that you can observe the results. One disk was marked with a circle, the other with a triangle. The triangle disk waveform is green and the circle pink.
Circle full waveform
Delta full waveform
Delta circle full overlay
Delta Circle overlay x 3
Delta Circle full overlay x6
Delta Circle overlay x9
Delta Circle overlay x 12
Delta Circle overlay x14
Delta Circle shift x 9
Delta circle shift x 12
Delta circle shift x 14
As you will observe (unless your belief system prevents it) both of these waveforms are identical. The final comparison at 12 x represents a ten microsecond chunk of the waveform. It is pixel perfect, identical.
So, for me, no subjective change and no observable change means no change. I know this is tweak heresy but there you have it. An actual test of a floppy, wishy washy, subjective test by KBK becomes a reasonably conducted amateur experiment, with an outcome.
An observation that I made while conducting this experiment was that it was very difficult to make a real comparison at all. Even with the headphones on and no chance of my position relative to the source changing, it was difficult to hold a true picture in my memory of what I had just listened to. After the repeated listnings I found the best thing to do was to pick out some interesting features and attempt to compare them. Even so, what we hear is a transient thing and comparing two substantively identical things is tricky. The initial "experiment" conducted by KBK is of course utterly invalid from any standpoint. He had no control subject and his auditioning was done in front of stereo speakers, standing up. In addition to this, he was the one who treated the disk and listened to it. He hasn't described his method but if it was more than a couple of minutes between listens he would have been unable to make any kind of accurate comparison. FAIL FAIL FAIL and FAIL .
Next up, Mrs Fresh will reveal the identity of the treated disk and I will then zap the bejeezuz out of it in the Weircliffe Bulk Eraser from hell. Then more listening (in a darkened room) and some more pictures. There aren't enough pictures on this forum and Geoffs are silly.
As a favor, would you be willing to intentionately magnetize one, or magnetize two from 'different directions?
I'd like to see the inverse of demagnetization in your study!
I'll give it a go Buddha. I know I've got a big PM around here somewhere.
If the discs are truly identical in signal as shown by the graphs, and a real difference is heard, it must come after the signal comes off the disc, from some other cause. As far as I can tell, the graphs presented here seem to imply identical signals for the two discs.
I don't remember reading about the current state of magnetization on the two discs before the signals were shown to be identical. (I apologize if I missed that post, while searching.) If the magnetized state is the same on both discs, proceed with the test and see what happens.
Since the test is to de-magnitize one of the discs and compare, then the assumption is that there is some magnetization already there on one or both discs. If the mag states are already different, a likely prospect, then magnetization state would not appear to matter, in these two discs with those two mag states, shown to yield the same signal before any demagnitizing.
This reasoning does not address what else the demagnitizer is doing to the disc, if anything. The burden of proof is on those making those claims.
However, I have not tried this kind of test, but can see that it's not so easy to control all the variables.
WTL, the purpose of the experiment is to determine if the electromagnetic field from the demagnetizer has an effect on the disc by inductively heating the 55um aluminium data layer, not necessarily demagnetizing it. The first post on this thread by KBK indicates an alteration in the quality of the sound reproduced from the disc after it had been treated by a handheld demagnetizing device. My experiment has been designed to test his theory that the inductive heating of the layer has physically altered the "pits" on the disc, which has lead to an "improvement" in sound reproduction.
At this point I am calling WRONG on that count as the waveforms on the two identical discs I used are impossible to tell apart, either by listening or observation, even after I gave one of them a really good soak with a strong electromagnetic field from a professional grade demagnetizer.
In my opinion, the "improvements" perceived by KBK are illusory and do not need to be explained. The methodology of his experiment was fatally flawed and cannot be relied upon.
Buddha has requested that I subject a disc to a strong magnetic field in an experiment to test 'magnetizing' a disk as opposed to demagnetizing it and I have agreed but I want to scare up a really decent permanent magnet for that one so it may take a day or two.
Phase two of the current experiment is to hit the treated disc with an even stronger AC field to cause more inductive heating. However according to KBK's methodology, I have already gone far enough with the handheld device.
Mrs Fresh has revealed the identity of the treated disc, it's the one marked with a circle.
"This reasoning does not address what else the demagnitizer is doing to the disc, if anything."
The problem is that noone on our side was ever claiming the pits are changed by demag treatment; the only assertion was that the sound changed. It's easy to prove a false premise incorrect. You might as well start off with the premise that the demag makes the disc turn blue. And for wavefiles, noone except the naysayers were claiming that demag would actually change the wavefiles. So to demonstrate in an experiment that the pits aren't changed and wavefiles aren't changed doesn't necessarily mean the demag treatment doesn't work (to improve sound); have to look deeper.
The Nespa device, by comparison, is a different story, in that the Nespa treatment does apparently change the physical geometry of the pits, albeit very subtly.
Geoff, no change equals no change. Any scientist would be able to grasp such a basic principle.
Go back and read KBK's thread starter. His theory was that the heat from the induction cleaned up the edges of the pits.
I'm surprised that a science graduate in Aerospace Engineering would also be satisfied with an experiment with no control subject.
If in the process of designing the NextGen FAA satellite system you had to choose a vendor for a directional antenna would you choose the vendor who had verifiable test data available or one who just guessed at it?
Say the spec was for an antenna with 50dB of gain in the primary lobes and 10db in the side lobes Vendor 'A' had calibrated their instruments with a standard omnidirectional antenna then put the directional unit in a chamber to test it using the data from the calibration antenna for comparison.
Or vendor 'B' whos engineers say "we put this in the chamber and we think its got 50dB gain in the primary lobe and 10dB in the side lobes but we didn't measure it against a control antenna"
Which one Geoff, subjective versus objective. Who's antenna would you buy?
Don't tell me that control units are unnecessary in testing and experimentation or you'll be exposing yourself I fear.
Don't you have some control pebbles in your manufacturing facility? If not, how in the wide world would you know if the latest batch is up to specification??????
The same with the clocks. What testing and calibration is carried out? Are some clocks found to be better than others? Do the superior clocks get stamped "MIL SPEC"? I'm just curious, a scientist and Aerospace Engineer would have to be very disciplined when it comes to testing and calibration.
I recall visiting the Alcatel satellite control facility in Sydney once and the engineers showed us a transponder off the PanAmSat bird that they were flying at the time. He pointed to it and said "that's worth a million dollars just sitting in the cradle in Sydney. Up there, its worth twenty million!" You wouldn't want to stuff something like that up on the ground. Imagine the fallout.
Scene: Inside satellite uplink facility.
Engineers are abuzz as they put their new multimillion dollar communications satellite through its testing sequences. Suddenly the room falls silent. "What do you mean the gain on the transponder is all over the place??" croaks the Senior Engineer "those units should have all been tested and calibrated before they left the ground!!' The room is still silent. "Give me the calibation data!" yells the SE. A test Engineer hands him a sheet of paper that reads" "I think all the transponders are in spec, they all looked the same at any rate"
Hi Fresh,
What is the volts per division? Just curious.
Thanks.
Quote KBK: "I feel the very leading and lagging edges of the pits have been likely 'rounded' by the intense electromagnetic field off of the demagnetizer, and thus the 'pit definition' is more perfected, and thus, due to how the signal is pulled off the CD's, there is a slight reduction in Jitter borne effects when it comes to bit placement (meaning start-stop bit/pit definition) in the read process.
Fresh Clip has been investigating an affirmatory claim by KBK.
AwwwwCRAP!!!! Now I've got spit take coffee to clean off my monitor!
FC, would you care to once again run through the long list of people you have announced are now on your "ignore" function? How many of those people offer opinions you do not share?
Oh, right, you can't see this because I'm one of the many you have on "ignore".
Well, that answers your question for you doesn't it?
Well, once again, let's be fair and show the rest of the post that relates to this thread.
Can someone explain what parts of FC's pictures would indicate changes in these areas; "a slightly more open acoustic and a slightly more warm sound", "Rhythmic drive", "the emphasis was slightly less 'harsh' or less 'edgy'", "where a more natural effect is to be resonant and have severe drive and 'thru-you' intensity, like a real horn does. After demagnetizing, this digital artifact was ameliorated to a small degree. Notably better than before."
What must change on the waveform to inidicate a "more open" sound? Or a "warmer" sound?
For those of you actually subscribe the Stereophile, take a look at the YG acoustics review in this month's issue. Read the last paragraph on page p. 73 of the subsection titled "You're Camembert". To assist you a bit, "Does that mean that if he produced a speaker that measured right but sounded wrong, he wouldn't change it? 'I would question the measurement in that case and refine my methodology.'"
What we have in FC's case is someone who already had the answer he wanted before he did any testing and simply settled for what confirmed his predisposed results. No need to question the methodolgy or examine what the tests actually show. In his opinion, his one poorly constructed test trumps all others that indicate dissimilar results.
In FC's own words;
This still comes back to "measure, measure, measure" equals "tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts". If you only care to look at specific pieces of decades old policies in an attempt to bolster your set opinion, you are never going to find a solution to new situations.
>>> "If the discs are truly identical in signal as shown by the graphs, and a real difference is heard, it must come after the signal comes off the disc, from some other cause." <<<
Stay with that concept WTL - i.e. That the difference in the sound may, quite simply, be from other causes AFTER the signal has come off the disc.
Regards,
May Belt.
Quote by Fresh Clip :-
>>> "Some of the products I have seen just lately are such utter bunkum that they could only appeal to those who are utterly ignorant of electrical theory or any science associated with the electronic reproduction of sound." <<<
Followed by the quote by Geoff Kait :-
>>> "--- Interesting theory, but quite untrue. Many people who have invested time and money in "outlandish tweaks" have degrees and advanced degrees in electronics, physics and other subjects directly related to audio reproduction." <<<
I would add to Geoff's comment the fact that as well as the many people referred to in Geoff's reply who have PURCHASED the 'tweaks', there are also many people who have PRODUCED what might be called "outlandish tweaks" who are also extremely skilled electronic and acoustic engineers !!!
Further to my statement.
You, Fresh Clip, bring into question who are scientists, who are skilled engineers involved in such things !!!
I know that such as Buddha hates it when I say that we (Peter and I) have been there, done that, 20 to 30 years ago, but I have just read the following from Stereophile April 2009 !!!
Quotes from :-
The Eminent Technology LFT-III Loudspeaker - Stereophile April 2009. By Anthony H. Cordesman
>>> "The Eminent Technology LFT-III also clearly qualifies as a new design by any standard. Like the Apogee Ribbons, it is one of the few new speaker systems since the appearance of the Magneplanars and Quads to introduce a major new departure from cone- or dynamic-speaker technology.
Technical Details
The Eminent Technology LFT-III is a new planar-magnetic doublet design, using a single-diaphragm transducer claimed to give a response ranging from 35Hz to beyond 40kHz. Unlike both the Magnepan planar magnetics and the Apogee bass driver, which are topologically similar to one another, the Eminent's magnets are on both sides of the diaphragm. This results in true push-pull operation, which, Eminent Technology claims, produces substantially more linear operation, keeping the diaphragm within a constant-flux magnetic field over its entire displacement range.
The conductors within the diaphragm, etched as if they were on a circuit board, are flat, with narrow gaps between each trace. The traces are very thin, keeping the impedance at a high 8
Not to be like lamers who have nothing of substance except insults, but I can't resist:
I believe those are screen shots from an audio editor program, not a 'scope. So what's shown is sample levels relative to full scale, independent of any specific voltage.
--Ethan
Interestingly, Fostex was marketing orthodynamic drivers in the early 70's:
Fostex started making orthodynamic headphones in the mid 70's and continues to manufacture them to this date. Fostex describes the technology this way:
"Key to the transparent sound reproduction is Fostex's Technology, a proprietary transducer and diaphragm design that has earned Fostex more than twenty international patents and has been successfully applied to microphones, headphones and loudspeakers used and relied upon in professional and commercial sound installations worldwide."
Patents!
Wharfdale was doing this by 1975.
Interesting concept, I have an old pair of Yamaha headphones from the mid-70's that use this type of drive unit. This was, of course, from the time May invented it.
Anyway, good for you May, you guys should make some!
The above, of course, proves that magnetizing or demagnetizing a CD can improve its sound.
So we don't know if the peak to peak voltage of the waveform is .1 or 10 volts peak to peak.
Maybe Fresh Clip will inform us?
At the point FC showed the data, it was already recorded and in a Wave file. So this is after whatever voltage it was when recorded into his sound card, and before whatever voltage it will be when sent out the sound card. At least I'm pretty sure this is what FC is showing.
--Ethan
As Ethan correctly points out, the screen shots are out of Adobe Audition and as such it is only giving dB and time information.
Here's a full screen image.
The scale places 0dB at peak, I haven't bothered to look into the settings on this scale to see if a different peak value can be set but for the purposes of this experiment the scale here is perfectly adequate.
The search for Geoff Kait continues. I am going to try an experiment today by seeing if I can find a friend of mine who works at the University by doing a search on his name. I'm also going to get in touch with an associate in Sydney who is associated with satellite engineering and see if he can offer a designers name that I can search. in my opinion, if Geoff designed the entire NextGen FAA satellite system, there would be some reference to him in connection with this work on the internet. By this I mean there would be references outside the audio/tweak sphere.
Still waiting for the pebble calibration details.
I feel one of my famous $100 wagers coming on.
I am SURPRISED you have not got a pair of OUR orthodynamic headphones from way back in the 1970s !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fostex may have been making orthodynamic headphones in the 1970s as were Wharfedale but magnetically driven diaphragm patents began in 1922. Wharfedale's Isodynamic headphones (I think) were using the Gamzon patent as were Strathearn. Wharfedale used copper on kapton as the diaphragm with rubber magnetic sheet.
Nowhere did I say I invented it. I was pointing out that too many people are accused of being nincompoufs without foundation. I was also responding to the Stereophile article which gave the impression that the Eminent Technology speakers were a NEW design.
>>> "Like the Apogee Ribbons, it is one of the few new speaker systems since the appearance of the Magneplanars and Quads to introduce a major new departure from cone- or dynamic-speaker technology.
Technical Details
The Eminent Technology LFT-III is a new planar-magnetic doublet design, using a single-diaphragm transducer claimed to give a response ranging from 35Hz to beyond 40kHz. Unlike both the Magnepan planar magnetics and the Apogee bass driver, which are topologically similar to one another, the Eminent's magnets are on both sides of the diaphragm." <<<
Magnets on BOTH sides of the diaphragm is NOT new.
Regards,
May Belt.
Exactly.
I was chatting with a fellow Lowther entusiast, and he said that back in the 30's this idea was tried with cone speakers and some different than usual form of field coil where they tried to achieve an orthodynamic efefct by driving a form of voice coil with what sounded like the equivalent of two filed coils in opposition, and hence moving the cone driver.
I'm sure I just butchered the explanation! I lay claim to know insight into what he told me, just tried to follow along it was mui interesting.
Apologies for that being gibberish!
On a related subject:
Excerpt from 6 Moons review of Nespa and Intelligent Chip by the dude and dudette PhDs in Netherlands
complete review at:
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/photoncannons/photoncannons.html
In one of our Google sessions, we stumbled onto Geoff Kait's machinadynamica.com site. Some years ago, Geoff had sent us two Intelligent Chips and based on the how-to instructions at the time, neither we nor a fellow writer could make these things work. So our IC was put away and frankly, we had forgotten about it. But now our attention was drawn by Geoff's statement that he had the Definitive Explanation for how his IC works.
Finally, this little teaser from the photon cannons review:
The reason for our ongoing tests was to find out why copying of pressed CD to CD-R in 99.9% of all cases sounded from just better to very much better. It worked out that by way of measurements, this could not be explained. Bits were indeed bits. In a resultant article, more details were revealed on the how and why of CD-R copies.
So, how do those photons get through the metal CD player case?
Imagine trying to penetrate and Ayre player!
Does it work better differently from player to player?
"So, how do those photons get through the metal CD player case?"
Well, that's really the $64,000 question, isn't it? But it's not the only big question. How does the CD laser light escape the player? How does laser light penetrate the small metal discs (containers of the actual Q-dots) inside the orange wafer? How do emitted photons from the Q-dots escape the small metal containers? And the orange wafer? Finally, How do emitted photons from the chip get back inside the player through the player's metal case?
"Imagine trying to penetrate an Ayre player!"
I have. No problemo, where there's a will there's a way.
"Does it work better differently from player to player?"
Varies system to system, person to person, disc to disc. Varies from OK to great, depending. And some folks report no effect at all. I should refer them to George Tice's 4 Reasons Why Some Audiophiles Have No Results or Only Subtle Results with Certain Tweaks in Stereophile magazine somewhere.
Thanks for the cut and paste advertisement for your product Geoff. Once again, the listening tests are the only proof and no explanation of the actual make-up of the "quantum dots" Oh no sorry, here's the explanation.
WTF are "artificial molecules" and how are they measured?
Oh but wait, Industrial giant Hitachi is caught up in this but unlike anyone involved with the tweak business...
WOW A whole 4dBm at a level so far below the threshold of hearing that even a bat would struggle to notice. A 40 to 50 year old man would be hard pressed to hear something at -50 to 60. I know that Audiophiles train their ears and hone them to razor sharpness but what is being presented here is merely academic information where human hearing is concerned.
My experiment to locate professional references in a web search has yeilded spectacular results for my friend Rick who works over at the local Uni. 21 yes twenty one pages on Google, all with relevant professional references to his published work in education and relating to his position at the University.
For "Geoffrey Kait", less than one full page of results all of which relate to audio/tweaks in some fashion and for "Geoff Kait" nine pages, all relating to audio/tweaks. Hmm, no references to Aerospace Engineering , NASA or FAA satellites. Very, very curious. I have a call in to my mate to try and find a guy involved in satellite design who may have heard of Geoff.
I'm going to zap the circle CD with the Weircliffe today, stand by for listening and waveform comparisons.
Oh and by the way... May, can you stop posting off topic? I hope you're a reasonable person and can agree to this simple request.
I know I don't own this thread but we're driving forward here with some actual testing of theories and not just fluffy feel-good backpatting.
"For "Geoffrey Kait", less than one full page of results all of which relate to audio/tweaks in some fashion and for "Geoff Kait" nine pages, all relating to audio/tweaks. Hmm, no references to Aerospace Engineering , NASA or FAA satellites. Very, very curious. I have a call in to my mate to try and find a guy involved in satellite design who may have heard of Geoff."
Sounds like a job for the Amazing Randi. Can't you do anything right?
No Randi needed, I can easily crack this nut.
It would be a real timesaver if you posted some links yourself Geoff. One for NASA one for the FAA work maybe.
Just a suggestion.
Oh BTW any chance of seeing your calibration data for the pebbles?
You keep skirting around these simple requests......
Oh, goody! I hope the person who designs this test is better at it than you are. That "test" you made up really sucked.
Say, did you get your $4 back on the two CD's?
>>> "Oh and by the way... May, can you stop posting off topic? I hope you're a reasonable person and can agree to this simple request." <<<
I am a very reasonable person. But, what appears to me is that you are actually meaning "YOU keep quiet May, whilst WE say exactly what we want to say." !!
>>> "Some of the products I have seen just lately are such utter bunkum that they could only appeal to those who are utterly ignorant of electrical theory or any science associated with the electronic reproduction of sound." <<<
So, the above - from you - was ON TOPIC was it ?????????????????
>>> "I know I don't own this thread but we're driving forward here with some actual testing of theories" <<<
So, in that case, why are you 'posting' after 'posting' something to do with searching for Geoff's background (or anyone else's background for that matter). For what purpose ? It will tell you whether Geoff (or anyone else) is good at hearing or not, will it ? Either you ARE attempting to "drive forward here with some actual testing of theories" or you are not.
>>> "I have a call in to my mate to try and find a guy involved in satellite design who may have heard of Geoff." <<<
And, this was ON TOPIC was it ??????
>>> "My experiment to locate professional references in a web search has yeilded spectacular results for my friend Rick who works over at the local Uni. 21 yes twenty one pages on Google, all with relevant professional references to his published work in education and relating to his position at the University." <<<
Or THIS ??????????
Regards,
May Belt.
>>> "Geoff, no change equals no change. Any scientist would be able to grasp such a basic principle." <<<
You are extrapolating, from measurements, that therefore no change in the measurements ALSO EQUALS no change in the sound !! If the data on the disc is not altered with a demagnetiser, then the measurements will show no alteration to the data - but that does not mean that - therefore - there will be no change in the sound !! Yes, you may insist that you were only checking for one thing - what KBK called 'inductive heating' and, presumably, you will now be checking the affect of applying a magnet to a disc as requested by Buddha. If the effect of applying a magnet also shows no changes to the data (no measurement changes), then what Fresh Clip ? How will you then explain Buddha 'hearing' changes ? How are you going to explain Michael Fremer's et al observations that the sound improved when THEY applied a demagnetiser to CDs ? If the measurements aren't giving you the answers then, surely, you will have to look elsewhere ?
To quote your own sentence back to you "Any scientist should be able to grasp such a basic principle." I.e to look elsewhere for an explanation !!!!!!!!!!!
Presumably, after investigating Buddha's request re applying a magnet to a CD, you will be next investigating the claim that applying a chemical to the LABEL SIDE of a CD improves the sound ? No ? Yes ? Re your statement "... we're driving forward here with some actual testing of theories ..."
Regards,
May Belt.
Hi Freshclip,
One will not see changes to the signal many db down, say
-50, -60 db etc on this graph because of resolution problems. I am not saying the cds are not the same, one cannot prove either way, but this graph won't show very minute changes between the musical signals which involves musical details such as the last bit of inner detail, small echos, edginess/attack perception etc. Similar to different capacitors where one cannot measure sound quality because the resolution is not there yet we know DA is present because we can measure it with a voltmeter (and we know ESR is also present).
Hope this helps.
Pop Quiz for the group:
1. How does the CD laser light penetrate the small metal disc that contains the quantum dots? (In order for quantum dots to fluoresce laser light must strike them.)
2. How do the photons emitted by the quantum dots escape their metal containers? Photo shows insides of the orange GSIC-30 Intelligent Chip: three very thin 1/8 inch diam metal discs embedded in thin green plastic sheet.
3. Why does the Intelligent Chip stop working after a limited number of uses? - 10 for GSIC-10 and 30 for the GSIC-30.
4. How does the Intelligent Chip know not to expend a "hit" on a disc that has already been treated by the chip?
Photo of Quantum Dot Containers
"It would be a real timesaver if you posted some links yourself Geoff."
It's much more fun watching you stumble around.
I have adjusted the vertical resolution in this new image to show the same region at 14 x magnification and the signal down in the minus 50dB area. This is the same part as the original 14 x image. I have once again done a color shift on the 'Circle' waveform and overlayed it on the 'Delta' waveform. The result is as you see here, a pixel perfect match. I know its confronting for may people to presented with some hard data.
The problem many of you are having is that you've been conditioned to accept non objective assessments of audio equipment and accessories. These assessments or 'reviews' as they are called, usually contain gushing hyperbole, lashings of adjectives and a tone approaching orgasmic climax over some cable or doo-dad. What I am providing here is the opposite, which may be inducing some culture shock..
I have actually gone to the trouble of conducting a real test with a control subject. Unlike any reviewer. I have no vested or commercial interest in the outcome of the experiment. I would have been very pleased to hear a difference in the treated and untreated discs actually. However, I did not perceive a difference and I did not set myself up with an uncontrolled test to trick myself into hearing a difference.
This statement illustrates very neatly what I have attempted to expose. Inner detail, edginess, minute changes... reviewer talk. SAS, I'd actually expect more from a fellow tech and designer. What is it that we need to discover about an audio signal? What is left to be discovered? Are there parts of an audio signal that cannot be measured? Which parts? From where I stand, test and measurement equipment exists in sufficient purpose and diversity to absolutely pull apart and measure any signal either in the electrical or acoustic domain and give you a number for the most minute amplitude or slice of time. Even in complex listening environments, the technology exists to map every null, every reflection, every nuance of a room. This is how the acoustics for concert halls and other critical listening environments is arrived at. Acoustics which are subsequently heard on recordings that are then turned into CD's , which are then played back on the precious equipment owned by audiophiles.
I tell you what, I have uploaded four files, one of them is the circle disc. There's Tango, Cash, Mutt and Jeff. Download them and see if you can pick the treated versus non treated track. Tell me your results and I'll tell you which is which after you have auditioned them. You have a one in four chance of picking the right track. I invite everyone to participate, test your ears, see if you can hear the unmeasurable nuances caused by the inductive heating of the data layer. This will take my disbelieving ears out of the equation. The tracks were all ripped at 1 x and all precisely the same size. The names are different but one is the circle disc. After I get some responses, let's say, more than four, I'll reveal the identity of the circle track.
Do you dare to test your audiophile skillz??
Jeff Mutt Cash Tango
All links tested, use option 2 File Factory Basic for download.
I'm hardly stumbling. The claims you have made for your qualifications and employment background have given me some solid leads to explore. Which I am in the process of doing.
I'll refrain from posting any more on this subject until I have some results, it's off topic.
"I'll refrain from posting any more on this subject until I have some results, it's off topic."
That's mighty white of ya.
You're kidding here, right? Go back and look at the objections I raised to your supposed "test" long before you conducted this joke of an unbiased test of theories.
Uh, how it sounds? Just a guess, you know, like how it sounds on a system? Not on headphones.
So you think nobody listens to the finished product? Not even with a pair of headphones? No adjustments for reality, just plot it on the computer and go? Then my reality is in conflict with your supposition. And you think they always built performance halls this way?
Nope, audiophile talk. But you wouldn't want to be labeled a silly ol' audiophile, would you? Better and easier to believe what those machines tell you, there are no such things as "air", or "inner detail" or "warmth". Not through your headphones at least. And if those are the qualities that were improved but you didn't care to listen for those qualities because to you they're just silly audiophile/reviewer things, well, I guess the rest of us can figure out just how relevant that makes your experience compared to those people who actually did listen for those qualities that might have been improved.
And you really believe you have no bias in this matter?
Regarding your test, I can't manage it. I'm one of those people who do not use my computer for audio purposes and I'm not interested in downloading a program (as I must to perform the comparison) just so I can listen through my computer's speakers or a pair of inexpensive headphones.
----------------------------------
Fresh Clip: "Is it so difficult to hear an opinion that doesn't agree with your own?"
Pages