Quote:

Quote:
0.07% variation.

I didn't check your math but that sounds about right. Your point?

Quote:
Glad to see you so concerned about this sort of subtlety!

Why does it bother you that as an aside I pointed out how much worse vinyl timing errors are compared to CDs? Do you refute that? And does it bother you just as much when hi-fi writers blather on about the audibility of jitter? Anyway, I did not actually hear the pitch errors, but I definitely noticed the LP ticks and pops. That totally ruined the listening experience for me!

--Ethan

Ethan, I'm glad you pointed it out. A 0.07% pitch error was worth reporting for you!

You thought enough of a 0.07% pitch error to use it as a point against the sound of a certain recording medium.

Great!

I'm ecstatic!

Normally, you toss off measurements of that magnitude as being insignificant, yet, in reality, this 0.07% pitch error bothered you enough that you measured it and reported on it!

We are arriving at concensus, maybe.

You put down vinyl over a 0.07% pitch error...showing just how finely wound you really are with regard to the listening experience! The fact that a 0.07% error got you juiced up and typing about it is great news!

I embrace your concerns about a 0.07% pitch error, and thank you for reporting on your concern.

For now, I will be happy to use 0.07% difference as my reference for measured differences that are large enough for Ethan to become concerned about them!

Hal La Loouie!

If you read my previous message in this thread about this, you'll see that you don't have to host the files yourself. You simply upload the mp3's to http://savefile.com/. (You don't even have to register to the service, and it's completely free to upload and download. There should be no headaches, as with FC's file hosting service).

As much as I would love to do this test on your prosumer audio system, I hope you understand Ethan that's it's a little bit trickier for me to fly to another country, than for you to upload a couple of mp3's to http://savefile.com. (4 if you wish to use my suggestion of copying the non-demagged version three times, to make it less likely for me to guess which is the demagnetized version; as FC did with his CD demag test files. n.b. 4 mp3's should be about 20MB total, not 120MB).

You're right that more details would be lost in the mp3 conversion, and it would make it more difficult for me, but I'm not sure that that would kill the test for me. I'd still be curious to try to see if I can make out any difference, or if my results are no different than yours off of the CD-R. If you do upload the files to savefile.com, please remember to rename them, so I don't know which is which (otherwise, what's the point?!). If it's too much hassle for you to convert and upload the files, I understand. I'm not pressing you or anyone to do so. Just putting the idea out there, because I figure more points of view can only be a good thing. Though I'm quite certain this test is not going to end the LP demag controversy one way or the other.

Quote:

Quote:
The files that are on the CD-R. You can't extract them, convert to mp3 and put them up so others can have a listen?

Well, I guess I could do that but I'm not sure of the value. I'm not willing to host ~120 MB times some unknown number of downloads on my site. And MP3 files are lossy compressed, so any fine details might be hidden. And besides, I'd much rather invite you here for a visit in person so I can see if you can tell which file that I pick is playing.

So email me from my site to set it up, and come on down any time!

--Ethan

>>> "Which is unmeasurable yet exists." <<<

On the subject of Hofstadter's "I Am A Strange Loop", we were also 'there' (in the same area, as it were) - throughout most of last year - although I feel sure that Buddha will not like me suggesting, yet again, "been there, already doing that" !!!! Bill Kenny, the Regional Editor of the Internet music magazine "MusicWeb International" wrote an article on Hofstadter's "Strange Loop" concept specifically for our (PWB) Chat Forum which we eventually published in our Christmas 2009 PWB Newlsetter.

Bill Kenny and I are in agreement that Hofstadter's "Strange Loop" concept has a similarity to Sheldrake's 'Morphic fields' concept. Both Hofstadter and Sheldrake see the earth as far more dynamic and interactive and that human beings are involved within all that far more than most people appreciate. The more we have investigated Sheldrake's 'morphic resonance' concept and now with those investigations including Hofstadter's "Strange Loop" concept, the more success (with improving sound) we are experiencing.

To quote from Bill Kenny's article:
"Looping the Loop: Douglas R Hofstadter's theory of human consciousness and its relevance to PWB products."

>>> "In his latest book, "I Am A Strange Loop", Hofstadter revisits the 600 page content of his earlier (1979) book "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid", and adds to its ideas in the light of 28 years of life experience. Why this might be relevant to thinking about Peter Belt's ideas, is that its conclusions may have more than a little bearing on Rupert Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance, a concept underpinning a good deal of PWB theorising." <<<

Your quote, John, >>> "The music is more than the notes" <<< could not be more true.

Regards,
May Belt.

Quote:
0.07% variation.
I didn't check your math but that sounds about right. Your point?

Where there is smoke there often is fire.

If I compare two files and they are exactly the same length for a given amount of music, then it is somewhat but not completely reasonable to presume that the files match from end to end.

If the files vary in overall length, then that begs the question: "Were things even worse in the middle, and maybe just maybe the many far larger audible variations averaged out to a far smaller overall difference".

I take it that the source is a needle drop. Based on a fair amount of experience with those, I'm quite sure that the short-term variations throughout the transcription significantly exceed 0.07%.

Professional tape machines can achieve a flutter value, without weighting, of 0.3%.

This is considered 'inaudible' by most objectivists.

Ethan is fond of telling us what's audible or not, and he was quite concerned about this 0.07% difference.

0.3% for pro gear, 0.07% for the cut he 'measured.'

1/4th the value of the tape machine used to make the cut,

Hmmmm.

Also, how did Ethan measure it? Not trying to quibble. Start of music to end of music, done electronically or did you hit a "time" button.

The reason I ask is that a human's reaction times would render that difference to being part of statistical noise. (Not a flame.)

DD turntables can be as low as 0.05% for wow and flutter.

Continuum, being a Hi FI manufacturer, doesn't specify the wow and flutter, etc...of their table.

It is very pleasing to see so many people so concerned about this 0.07% difference!

I bet there are cables that vary by this much!

I better go look! Ethan will be pleased!

Quote:
Ethan is fond of telling us what's audible or not

The big difference between me and those who purport to hear magical properties of wires and power conditioners is that I actually have proof, and often post audio examples:

Artifact Audibility Report
Dither Report
A common-sense explanation of audiophile beliefs

--Ethan

Quote:
Professional tape machines can achieve a flutter value, without weighting, of 0.3%.

Seems high, but analog tape is irrelevant in 2009 since we've had far better means at our disposal for so many decades.

Quote:

This is considered 'inaudible' by most objectivists.

That would be a very hard sell in 2009.

Please convert the jitter in a good digital audio interface like a LynxTWO to percent flutter and wow for a guide to 2009 "objectivist standards".

Quote:

Ethan is fond of telling us what's audible or not, and he was quite concerned about this 0.07% difference.

That's because like me, he's aware of the mean convergence theorum, etc.

Quote:

0.3% for pro gear, 0.07% for the cut he 'measured.'

Absolutely, positively not.

Please come back with some 2009 numbers, I told you how to calculate them if you can't find them.

Quote:

Quote:
0.07% variation.
I didn't check your math but that sounds about right. Your point?

Where there is smoke there often is fire.

If I compare two files and they are exactly the same length for a given amount of music, then it is somewhat but not completely reasonable to presume that the files match from end to end.

If the files vary in overall length, then that begs the question: "Were things even worse in the middle, and maybe just maybe the many far larger audible variations averaged out to a far smaller overall difference".

I take it that the source is a needle drop. Based on a fair amount of experience with those, I'm quite sure that the short-term variations throughout the transcription significantly exceed 0.07%.

I think you are right, by the way.

Now it's just a matter of whether or not it 'mattered!'

Quote:

Now it's just a matter of whether or not it 'mattered!'

More to the point, did the Furutech deMag matter?

Has anybody definitivly said what its use changes?

Pace?

Timing?

Rhythm?

Nonlinear distortion?

Linear distortion?

Noise?

Dynamics?

Soundstaging?

The price of tea in China?

---------

Inquiring minds want to know!

Quote:

Quote:

Now it's just a matter of whether or not it 'mattered!'

More to the point, did the Furutech deMag matter?

Has anybody definitivly said what its use changes?

Pace?

Timing?

Rhythm?

Nonlinear distortion?

Linear distortion?

Noise?

Dynamics?

Soundstaging?

The price of tea in China?

---------

Inquiring minds want to know!

I will pass on that part of the issue.

Did you try to do comparative listening?

Quote:
Did you try to comparative listening?

Real audiophiles don't even have to listen!

Quote:

Quote:
Look past the cows beside and around you in the herd. A matter of fact - forget the herd. They're all the same, anyway. Boring as shit. Open your eyes to what is past them. It's always been there, they even left signs behind, for those who finally develop the eyes to see.

I am currently reading Douglas Hofstadter's "I Am A Strange Loop," a book-length essay on this same subject, on how you need to ignore the complexity of the underlying physical phenomena in order to comprehend the reality of the epiphenomena they fuel, with the ultimate epiphenomenon being the concept of self. Which is unmeasurable yet exists. (Or at least I know I do.)

Again, first there is a mountain etc. The music is more than the notes.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I took a bit of a look at the book info on the net. I also noted that there is a recursive thing tied to it. Images, effects, etc. Perhaps he speaks of it in the book.

'As above, So below' the mages say. for a reason.

Oddly enough, the dimensional shift or 'turning', is seen and recorded by the conscious mind as a 'flash' when under the influence of the drug 'Salvia'. This, when coming onto the so called 'high' or off of it. Well, it is far more than a simple mind trick. For one, nearly every single person who has tried the stuff reports the SAME effect, that is, if they have any recollection at all of the effects.

Also, they report a fight to pull out of a recursive (vertical) dimensional rift (stacked 2-d representations of dimensions -in flow- seen edge on) that is spiraling down in a anti-clockwise fashion and they have to pull to the clockwise and up to escape it-as they regain full so called 'consciousness'. Always the same story.

(And a sort of generally addressed note):
One of those countless thousands of interesting things that sensible people who actually search in a fearless fashion..that they do not shy away from such..and investigate as much as they can.

This might seem like a bizarre and freaky fringe thing to even consider or look at. Well, for those who are deeply ensconced in the herd - I call them the fool. For they are the walking dead, the sleepers - and I want no part of or truck with them. Nothing against them, but I sure won't put up with such folks attempting to explain to me what is real and what is not.

Alex Grey has some interesting Art comparatives to the effect. This is not it, but it is nonetheless interesting.

Mmmmmmm, salvia.

We've served that at T.H.E. in the past.

Tinctures up and has a salutatory effect on Hi Fi.

Quote:
Oddly enough, the dimensional shift or 'turning', is seen and recorded by the conscious mind as a 'flash' when under the influence of the drug 'Salvia'.

Salvia the herb? That would be sage. Burn it as incense during a night of listening.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=smoking%20salvia&type=

Salvia should not be tried without what is known as a 'sitter' (a minder), and never with external stimuli.

The recursive item tied to the book is in direct support of the origins and aspects of Astrology, the oldest and most complex science of all. So complex that it is near inscrutable to even the most learned and capable of scientific types (caste). This, due to the fact that it is the origins of all math, number theory, record keeping,(scientific doctrine, etc) observation, geometry, psychology, etc. Basically, it is the fundamental point in the origins of the development of man as a reflective observation. Astrology is not for wimps or those with closed minds, it is for the learned Renaissance Man with capacity and breadth. Small wonder that it is maligned by the ignorant. When observed closely and through honest attempts to discern it's depth and breadth..one eventually finds it has a minimum 85% correlation with human existence/flow. It is predictive of the origins of the given man, the development of the psychology and physiology, the flow of the given life, the timing and shape of events in the given life and the end point. Such things are exceedingly disturbing to hardcore rationalists and realists that dominate the so-called sciences. Astrology is part and parcel of the higher set that is yet again (as above, so below) capable of being differentiated from the realms of 'science' (as we see it in the every day world, up to and including the musings on reality) and the 'known world'. This, with respects to even fringe areas that the average man is aware of existing, if in name only. Astrology is about an ever repeating loop (as seen from above) of a upward moving spiral (viewed from the proper angle) of the development of man and the individual.

What I'm saying is that the intrepid explorer types who will do their solemn duty for and with the hopes of elevating man on the whole, WILL explore the nature of astrology in the hopes of discerning the why of it's fundamental correctness. They just don't talk about it. For the reasons stated in this mentioned book. The bare point of reinforcement by the self created and maintained loop effect.

Oddly enough, the premise of Astrology is that it shows the effects of the universe to take you OFF the repetitious wheel of the loop itself.

Ah...Birth. One enters into an established set of potential patterns that may take place, with the first day being 100% of the effects on one's formation..the second day being 50% of one's mental formation, the 3rd day being 33% of one's formation, etc, etc.

This is why the days seem shorter as you grow older. the method of keeping them long is to maintain the eagerness and life attributes you had as a child and LEARN-- always. One key advantage of noting the shortness of the days is that one can begin to see the longer time frame patterns. However, both conditions can be pursued/observed at the same time.

What we are talking about here is the 'open page', and 'alive and recording machine' that is the mind of man shaping itself with snapshots of extreme input and relatively permanent deepest layer programming at the base level. Those are the first few months of life..which become the unconscious layers of mental formation.

These inner layers become inaccessible to the conscious mind (stacked layering) as it develops (inner voice occurring for most at the age of about 5)-prior to that, one is more of a repeat learned behaviour automaton. The inner voice interchange begins at that point, ie the serious development of the ego. The ego buries itself through intense and constant familiarity and becomes one with the the self, even though it is not. Thus the formation of the stated loop.

The inner and/or base layers are STILL in operation with the ego stacked on top. They are like rose coloured glasses that we see/feel/etc end understand all things of any sensory type-through. think of it as a juxtaposition of fear/desire as impetus (it has no eyes or voice), with input from the layer on top, the so-called conscious mind and inner voice. However, the inner voice, the conscious mind has no idea that it is integrated with the ego, which is the bridge of interpretation between the sensory input and the fear/desire origins.

To clarify- all that you think, fear, emote, love, understand, muse, ponder, speak on, etc is filtered and interpreted by this egoic and body/hindbrain/reptile/monkey controlled filter. This is easy to understand as a fact in point when it is noted that it is well known that the intellect can be overwhelmed by emotional considerations. And that people can even be re-programmed by stressing the body's systems to the breaking point and thus the programming unravels a bit and shows it's core..and this point is attacked to create a deep layer of programming alongside or to replace that which exists.

The idea of astrology is to understand these points and to illustrate such for and to those who look well/deeply enough -due to interest in such subjects. This, due to personal bias, issues etc. Looking for a miracle or fix, whatever the case may be. Mohamed heads for the mountain.

However, most (people) run into a brick wall there, as they don't understand that the egoic mind partitions the self off from the unconscious/superconscious and performs ALL conscious interpretation...and this ego thing is far wilier, smarter, and quicker than the conscious mind. Like a worm one attempts to pull on, it sneaks back into the mind and tries to bury itself back into permanence and backdrop, if one should attempt to discern it.

Confounding the issue is the bulk of humanity as a reflection for the individual to deal with, with regards to reinforcement of the ego's existence. Meaning, if one attempts to erase the ego from the mind, one's brother will come along and see the dilemma and perform that brother's egoic duty and stop the individual from removing the egoic mask. For people who are free of ego can't be out in public, as the refection of all those egos--forbids it. The chicken with the blood on it gets pecked to death by the rest of the herd.

When attempting to remove or alter the space occupied with/by the ego, the base requirement is one of -which as interpreted by an outsider- would be that of near total insanity. Exactly or similar to the aspects of interrogation or brainwashing. Same-same. This, due to the fact of the re-formation and re-addressing of the base layers of the human mind. They need be consciously found and interpreted...and then dealt with. All the little things in the given life that stressed and formed the mind must be dealt with, down to the point of birth, for the best results. Brainwashing techniques go down as far as they need to for the given results they require, but for full mental clarity every moment (looking/rolling backward) up to birth must be revisited and dealt with.

As one can see, with what looks like insanity in the individual (due to all stresses ever encountered being dealt with), it can be an issue that requires a bit of finesse and care..which is why Buddhists teach these things, these 'openings', one-on-one.

As we tend to exist as reflective creatures, the intrepid and inner exploring individual...like the chicken with blood on it-- the rest of the herd of mankind will attack the man who seeks clarity, as the very existence of one in their midst with their mask cleared away is a danger to their deeply embedded masks. We are talking about a true and deeply embedded 'fear of death' here. The one the individual is attempting to clear away and the one in the rest of man that fears the 'seeker' individual.

For the given inner explorer...it's a hell of a war and mass to attempt to run up against while ensconced in the western world, which is clearly one of egoic intent and basis. The ceaseless animalism that is broadcast on that channel every second of every day makes this brutally obvious.

There is an external (or extra, unrealized by the common and even learned man, this, due to the reasons stated) system in place that takes advantage of these constructional aspects in man and has steered western society and culture into a state that is clearly de-evolved from the higher aspects of some long standing eastern cultures. This is traceable as being intent driven and purposeful. The ego itself hides this from the common man and if a physicist, doctor, lawyer or Indian chief thinks it is ridiculous, then they have not the information, desire or capacity for such understanding. But they do posses the overlay of logic, but not that of true logic, ie truth on all levels. They are a victim of the German School of Thought/teaching and learning which is specifically logic and proof driven..and is about as far from inner truths in man as can possibly be. Particle without the wave -which is a fundamental failure.

It is interesting to note that the German school of thought came about right as Weishaupt came onto the scene. It is purely an externalized (don't look inside!) system of rote learning and permanence designed to lock the past -into- the future.

This is the state of our westernized science, today. Our culture and society is largely based upon these premise, and the mentioned animalism as a directed control force for the masses is entirely evident. The recent Swine Flue pandemic scare mongering as a distractive and control methodology should make that abundantly clear for anyone who possesses one lick of sense and capacity to (clearly) discern. Either natural or created vehicles utilized as directional whips for the mass of mankind.

Point is, the bulk of the scientific establishment (pundits as 'joe boys' or wandering angry knives of psychological stricture and structure enforcement-to avoid self reflection) is far removed from the realities of the true layers of human existence. they are foot soldiers for their particular form of brutish violence; to be enacted upon all they see, to attack those who do not maintain their egioc masks and seek openness.

Result: The most elevated knowledge of mankind is hidden for a reason and only the near-inscrutable signage is left behind for the intrepid explorer who is developing the eyes to see...

To go full circle in a quick and abrupt manner, relatively speaking, as continuing would require many books worth of typing....

People live in self reinforcing loops..unless they become AWARE of such..and the vast bulk of human existence is clearly against such musings.

As we see here in the demagnetizing LP's thread.

Point being, for the pundits and knife handlers attempting to make sure the reflection of another (the openness of the other) does not damage their egoic constructions, get thee the fuck over one's self and understand that we do hear these things and they cannot be written off -- as your mind wishes them to be.

Address you inner issues and get off my back. Get thee to a nunnery.

Ingesting anything without knowledge beforehand is stupid in the extreme - or a CIA experiment.

Sage is one of the most diverse herbs on the planet with more varieties and uses than any other herb I can think of. You can certainly try one of the more potent forms of Salvia and find your dumb self in the E.R. Or you can use one of the more common varieties and find a milder effect that allows more control. One of the most common uses for sage is as a cleansing tool. You should have no problem finding more information on how to use sage as a tool. When friends come over to listen to music I always have the sage burning before they arrive.

This goes back to "ritual" and the "Perception" thread of a while back. If you're lighting candles or imbibing in other natural relaxants while listening to music, try sage as an alternative.

You can experiment with a combination of salvia, and damiana and/or passion flower. Passion flower is an easy to grow, prolific and beautiful flowering herb that when introduced in any form provides an effect not unlike mild versions of other more well known "recreational" herbs.

Go to your health food store and ask about incense with sage as its base material. Dig out the Marantz 2270B and JBL L36's and sit back for an experience that patouchli and sandalwood could never manage.

Thankfully, Jan,..I'm too young to understand Patchouli.

If only those lizard/monkey brained scientists could get us to the real root of astrology.

It's not so much when you are born as it is when you are conceived.

By the time you are born, you're already a big ticket item.

It's when you are a zygote that effects are magnified.

We are all familiar the greater fragility of a 'person' the farther we go back to conception.

Trouble is, conception to delivery is not as precise a time as we'd like to be able to make calculations. That makes finding things out really tough.

I suppose you can go for 'averages' and try to tie things to time of birth, but that gets so messed up with all the bullshit of what mommy had for dinner, was she given meds to speed up or delay the process...etc.

What most people take as astrology is a monkey brain attempt to approximate something they'll never know. It really does become money grubbing ladies in scarves before crystal balls at that point.

The non-monkey brained crowd has tried to move things a little forward with log books and trying to 'time' conception, but even there they can be off by days.

Fact is, we don't/can't know the exact moment of conception, where the spirit world and the monkey brain and the cosmic world collide. Conception is the key, certainly not birth. Birth is a crude amateurish approach to all of this. Birth is late, it's nurture, gestation itself is mostly nurture. It

Quote:
Thankfully, Jan,..I'm too young to understand Patchouli.

I think I've told this before but the first time I felt too old was the first time the Playboy Playmate had been born in a different decade than I was and she wasn't Marilyn Monroe.

Quote:
Salvia should not be tried without what is known as a 'sitter' (a minder), and never with external stimuli.

That's a little heavy on the Wikipedia, KBK.

It can be a fine social 'lubricant' and make for great conversational insights. Conversations and insights "during" can be different than talking about what happened "after."

There are also similar preparations of other cool things...

That one tastes terrible, however.

Here and there, commercial extracts are made and sold for Salvia (which is not the same as what you buy in the herb section at Whole Foods. Just like hemp rope is different than other hemp products.)

You mention the part about "if they remember." If someone can have others around to cue them to shared insights during, it can actually make the whole process even better.

Plus, never serve someone something they don't know what it is. No DBT hosting!

And, just like in audio, one has to factor in expectation bias!

On a related note, the person to person variation is rather greater than you may have been lead to believe.

As a scientist, I'm sure you are dubious of claims that "nearly every single person who has tried the stuff reports the SAME effect."

There is just too much person to person variability to make such a broad claim. Then, even if we do latch on to similarities, is it phenomenon or epiphenomenon? If people who take a medicine see blue halos around things, is it insight, or pharmacology?

I certainly hope is it not associated with inducing an appreciation of bad art!

I wonder if the guy who engraved the Great Seal on the back of the dollar bill was on Salvia.

Quote:
As a scientist, I'm sure you are dubious of claims that "nearly every single person who has tried the stuff reports the SAME effect."

This is supposedly true of those who have taken Yage prepared by Andean shamans- almost a universal experience of visions of jaguars and a near death component. Of course, this is serious psychedlics with a strong cultural history in South America.

Quote:
I don't know how Mikey defines "easy to hear the difference" but I heard no difference. Nothing, not even a little ... Anyone who believes they hear a difference, please tell me the start and end times as mm:ss so I can listen carefully to those places too.

So it's been a few weeks now and nobody else has heard a difference either? Not even Mikey can say where in mm:ss format the sound is obviously different after demagnetizing the vinyl record?

--Ethan

Quote:

Quote:
I don't know how Mikey defines "easy to hear the difference" but I heard no difference. Nothing, not even a little ... Anyone who believes they hear a difference, please tell me the start and end times as mm:ss so I can listen carefully to those places too.

So it's been a few weeks now and nobody else has heard a difference either? Not even Mikey can say where in mm:ss format the sound is obviously different after demagnetizing the vinyl record?

--Ethan

Arny said he could ABX 20/30 on HA.

Well, I did ask you to convert and post the files (renamed), so that anyone could download them and have a blind listen. Since you have not done so or responded to my request, very few people have those files. So I'm not surprised if you're not getting much of a response.

Also, don't presume that if no one comments on something, you can conclude no differences were heard. That is not very 'scientific'. If applied to you, we would have to presume you heard nothing on FC's clips. Should that be presumed? Or should it be presumed you still haven't even tested them?

And I have to say, I find it odd that you think the sound would change at a particular minute and second of a track.

Hi Axon,

Could you point me to that Arny post on HA? I tried finding it by searching on "fremer" but there were over 700 matches. Thanks

Quote:
Hi Axon,

Could you point me to that Arny post on HA? I tried finding it by searching on "fremer" but there were over 700 matches. Thanks

It was in the Gizmodo thread:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=71245&view=findpost&p=632065

Quote:

Arny said he could ABX 20/30 on HA.

Guilty as charged.

The whole situation seems strange. It is almost is like nobody on the anti-Furutech side took Fremer's needle drops very seriously until I did.

Part 1 - the claim that there was a significant playing time difference. I can't confirm it. I went through and did my usual time synch thing and found that both needle drops has the same length for the same music within less than 0.07%. Actual lengths were 5:39.984 (before) and 5:39.758 (after).

0.07% speed consistency isn't bad for analog, and it is not likely to be perceived as a pitch or tempo change.

I ran overall level checks and found that the two files match well within 0.1 dB.

The over-all FFT analyses, and found that the "after" file had a signficiant treble roll-off. I'm talking -3 dB @ 10 Khz, still increasing at 18 KHz.

I then decided that "I can ABX that", and if P < 0.05 floats your canoe, then it floats.

http://www.jerrydallal.com/LHSP/p05.htm

Personally I favor P < 0.01, but maybe I could get there if I actually put some seriouis effort into it.

The remaining question is "why".

Playing a LP twice in quick sucession is thought by many to have significant short-term effects on a LP all by itself.

From the form of the data, it appears that the "before" file might have been the 5th step in a multi-step process, and the "after" file the 6th. A proper control would then be at least 6 steps on an identical LP whose initial state was the same amount of use, but without operating the Furutech in between steps.

I'm not sure if I'll have the time until Thursday, but I really, really need to revisit this whole thing. When I sample-aligned the tracks, I estimated the speed diff at 0.6% - far far higher. And a spectral comparison more or less nulled out....

Why not just listen to the files? Then you could tell us what you "heard".

Test equipment doesn't seem to be agreeing on much.

Do you guys always measure before you listen? Wouldn't that set in place expectation biases?

Quote:

Quote:

Arny said he could ABX 20/30 on HA.

Guilty as charged.

The whole situation seems strange. It is almost is like nobody on the anti-Furutech side took Fremer's needle drops very seriously until I did.

Part 1 - the claim that there was a significant playing time difference. I can't confirm it. I went through and did my usual time synch thing and found that both needle drops has the same length for the same music within less than 0.07%. Actual lengths were 5:39.984 (before) and 5:39.758 (after).

0.07% speed consistency isn't bad for analog, and it is not likely to be perceived as a pitch or tempo change.

I ran overall level checks and found that the two files match well within 0.1 dB.

The over-all FFT analyses, and found that the "after" file had a signficiant treble roll-off. I'm talking -3 dB @ 10 Khz, still increasing at 18 KHz.

I then decided that "I can ABX that", and if P < 0.05 floats your canoe, then it floats.

http://www.jerrydallal.com/LHSP/p05.htm

Personally I favor P < 0.01, but maybe I could get there if I actually put some seriouis effort into it.

The remaining question is "why".

Playing a LP twice in quick sucession is thought by many to have significant short-term effects on a LP all by itself.

From the form of the data, it appears that the "before" file might have been the 5th step in a multi-step process, and the "after" file the 6th. A proper control would then be at least 6 steps on an identical LP whose initial state was the same amount of use, but without operating the Furutech in between steps.

Interesting!

Examining the changes associated with repeat play and the time interval between plays may make for some cool data.

So, the sonic improvements that people report?

Quote:
Why not just listen to the files? Then you could tell us what you "heard".

Back at you. I asked you what you guys heard about a week back what you heard and received *very* inconclusive answers.

I listened. It is arguable that I heard something. AFAIK, I'm the only living human who bothered to carry things this far.

Quote:

Test equipment doesn't seem to be agreeing on much.

The results I'm seeing are very repeatable. Test equipment is operated by people, and its the results of that which would lead to any disagreement.

Quote:

Do you guys always measure before you listen? Wouldn't that set in place expectation biases?

The ability of blind listening tests to strip away expectation biases, both positive and negative, is not to be underestimated.

I notice that when faced with confimation of the presence of an audible difference, there seems to be no joy.

Joy in confirmation? I didn't realize we were supposed to be so unsure. Hmm. Maybe this is one of those rite of passage listening tests.

Quote:
Back at you. I asked you what you guys heard about a week back what you heard and received *very* inconclusive answers.

If you'll read the thread (something all the DBT'ers seem to have a problem with), you will see my post where I have again run into difficulties with these files loading into my computer. It's my computer that's the issue, we've been through this before and I just have no desire to go through the headaches new files seem to present to this system. So there's your glove right back across your chin.

Besides, I have read the reports from those listeners who already have gained my trust. When the time comes to listen to demagnetized LP's I'll do it on my own system with my own discs and without squabbling over measurements first. I know, "unscientific", but that's me and that's why I am on this forum and not another.

Why are you here?

Quote:
Test equipment is operated by people, and its the results of that which would lead to any disagreement.

I would say the tests have been very repeatable. Everyone of the measurement hounds performing exactly the same tests and nothing more. All of them thinking they have what is required to understand this subject by using nothing more than what they aready know and supposedly understand. Not one person making a leap to something new that might shed more light on why so many listeners report positive effects from demagnetization. So, if it doesn't fit into an already established curriculum, then you have your answer as far as you are concerned. No need to ask further questions or think beyond what you already have planned. What has been vaildated by others simply must be wrong. Progress stops where your existing knowledge takes you. If you can't figure it out, it's the other guy who has a problem.

But we've been through this before too. It gets old.

Quote:
I notice that when faced with confimation of the presence of an audible difference, there seems to be no joy.

Let me get this clear; you have noticed from a half dozen postings there is "no joy"? However, from the hundreds of written reports by respected journalists and listeners - our own MF, JA and SM among them - who have reported positive benefits from demagnetization, you have noticed nothing?

Nothing? Your perceptive skills fail you here?

Why's that? Because they didn't take measurements before they listened? Or because they just trusted their ears? Or possibly because their findings don't agree with your preconceived notions and expectation biases so they must be suffering from one of the many forms of dementia used by the stallwart DBT'ers to disqualify any report that doesn't walk lockstep in their "scientific" views?

Gets old.

When you give equal credence to all parties' observations and stop limiting your thinking to what you already know, then I'll download some files - with joy! Until then this is all just mental masturbation by a group of people who can't agree where the needle sits on their favorite test gear.

Quote:

If you'll read the thread (something all the DBT'ers seem to have a problem with), you will see my post where I have again run into difficulties with these files loading into my computer.

As I have written before, the problem is that these AIFF files are "sowt" AIFF rather than regular AIFF. I have been sending people WAV equivalents if they email me their street address.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:

Quote:
Back at you. I asked you what you guys heard about a week back what you heard and received *very* inconclusive answers.

If you'll read the thread (something all the DBT'ers seem to have a problem with), you will see my post where I have again run into difficulties with these files loading into my computer. It's my computer that's the issue, we've been through this before and I just have no desire to go through the headaches new files seem to present to this system. So there's your glove right back across your chin.

No problem.

What about the other posters to this thread?

Quote:

Besides, I have read the reports from those listeners who already have gained my trust. When the time comes to listen to demagnetized LP's I'll do it on my own system with my own discs and without squabbling over measurements first. I know, "unscientific", but that's me and that's why I am on this forum and not another.

I thought that personal experience was the most important thing.

Quote:

Why are you here?

To shed new light on the topic at hand, which I clearly have.

Quote:

Quote:
Test equipment is operated by people, and its the results of that which would lead to any disagreement.

I would say the tests have been very repeatable.

I just read the whole thread (again). In the posts other than mine, I see evidence of just one test - overall length of the tracks, with low resolution numbers provided for those.

Quote:

Everyone of the measurement hounds performing exactly the same tests and nothing more.

Jan, I suggest that you reread the thread. You are very wrong about that. I ran a number of tests, some with far higher resolution results, and other different tests producing results that had not been reported before on this thread.

Not the least of the new tests was a DBT with some kind of a positive outcome.

Quote:

All of them thinking they have what is required to understand this subject by using nothing more than what they aready know and supposedly understand.

Jan, since you are so completely wrong about who tested what, one can only presume that the above verbal muddle is based on your prejudices and not the facts at hand.

Quote:

Not one person making a leap to something new that might shed more light on why so many listeners report positive effects from demagnetization.

Jan, I suggest you reread the thread. I pointed out several new issues explaining why so many listeners report positive effects from demagnetization, given the way they tested it.

Quote:

So, if it doesn't fit into an already established curriculum, then you have your answer as far as you are concerned.

What established curriculum moght that be, Jan? Your track record for complaining about people who don't read threads and then making erroneous claims about what was said in the thread and by who?

Quote:

No need to ask further questions or think beyond what you already have planned.

Yet another seemingly knee-jerk dismissal based on an obviously incomplete understanding of even the last few posts on this thread.

Quote:

What has been vaildated by others simply must be wrong.

I've made a number of claims that others never addressed, let alone validated. Jan, didn't you read my posts?

Quote:

Progress stops where your existing knowledge takes you.

So Jan, that kind of limitition doesn't apply to people who slavishly accede to reports made by others? What about those who miss reports of new kinds of relevant evidence asyou clearly have?

Quote:
Jan, didn't you read my posts?

Not really. Too many posts concerning whether there is 0.007% or 0.05%. Too much talking between those who want to differ over quibbles and quibble over insignificant differences. Not enough talking about what has been heard or not heard. Really? Too much of this ...

Quote:
I then decided that "I can ABX that", and if P < 0.05 floats your canoe, then it floats.

http://www.jerrydallal.com/LHSP/p05.htm

Personally I favor P < 0.01, but maybe I could get there if I actually put some seriouis effort into it.

There are others like me on this forum who don't want to have to take a course in "P" to listen to music.

This stuff goes on and on and never changes anyone's opinion. We are now at page 24 and what has been accomplished? Just how much attention am I supposed to devote to this merry-go-round? It's not like I have been an active poster on this thread. If I had, I would have read what you posted. As is, it just doesn't matter that much to me to read ...

Quote:
I then decided that "I can ABX that", and if P < 0.05 floats your canoe, then it floats.

http://www.jerrydallal.com/LHSP/p05.htm

Personally I favor P < 0.01, but maybe I could get there if I actually put some seriouis effort into it.

Capiche?

Quote:
Joy in confirmation? I didn't realize we were supposed to be so unsure. Hmm. Maybe this is one of those rite of passage listening tests.

I think confirmation can't help but be achieved by some, no matter what the 'measurements.'

On the one hand, we have a statement that listeners tend to prefer an upwarded tilted frequency response in blind trials.

Then, we had someone stating that LP's have reduced high end frequency response, but that it was some sort of glare that was masquerading as uptilted high frequency response that made people prefer LP. (This was touted by an objectivist, but was a subjective opinion, without objective data. Quel irony.)

Then, we had someone measure, and we now have data showing that the 'post demagnetization' trial had a measurable dip in high frequency response, and no reported emphasis or glare at other frequencies; which would fly in the face of the other objectivist's conclusion as to preference for LP sound.

Sometimes, it seems these objectivists are content to leave each other alone and just take turns tossing 'objective spaghetti' at the wall and not even waiting to see if it sticks before declaring some sort of objective victory.

So, which is it? If the claims that listeners prefer tilted up high end are true, then the measurements prove this wrong.

Objectivists claim that a 0.07% speed difference is a sign of "analog" type performance, not up to digital standards, but after they point out the problem they are required to fall on the CYA "Sword of Inaudibility." So, they use numbers to find fault in one breath, but then have to equivocate with "may not be audible" or "not likely audible" to keep the faith.

Which is it? Audible or inaudible?

If you find 0.07% difference in speed a flaw, please provide your data re: audibility.

Quote:
Actual lengths were 5:39.984 (before) and 5:39.758 (after).

Then we must have different files, not just AIFF and Wave equivalents. My files are 5:41:853 and 5:40:906. Loading an AIFF file into an audio editor program and saving as Wave will not change anything, and certainly not the length.

Quote:
The over-all FFT analyses, and found that the "after" file had a signficiant treble roll-off. I'm talking -3 dB @ 10 Khz, still increasing at 18 KHz.

I don't see that either here, at least not when examining the entire files.

Quote:
Objectivists claim that a 0.07% speed difference is a sign of "analog" type performance, not up to digital standards ... Which is it? Audible or inaudible?

It's not that simple. The overall length error is 0.07, but wow timing errors within that length span are surely far worse.

--Ethan

Quote:

It's not that simple. The overall length error is 0.07, but wow timing errors within that length span are surely far worse.

--Ethan

Ethan, you're the one who brought up total time as a criticism.

If "it's not that simple," why did you poop out the turd of over-all time difference as such a simplified criticism?

If the variations within that time span are "far worse," you should be pulling data, not saying, "surely."

You pulled up the total time difference, not the wow within the piece. Either back up your claims, prove your criticism has an audible consequence, or show us the data you say is 'surely' there to convince us of your 'surety.'

That shouldn't be asking too much.

If it was "surely far worse," it would surely be measurable!

You're making stuff up!

Did you hear a difference?

If not, how can you criticize the difference and all say that the speed variation is "surely much worse" than measured?

Remember, you're the guy who likes to say measured differences are not audible when a subjectivist happily points out measured differences in other realms.

Quote:

Quote:
Actual lengths were 5:39.984 (before) and 5:39.758 (after).

Then we must have different files, not just AIFF and Wave equivalents. My files are 5:41:853 and 5:40:906. Loading an AIFF file into an audio editor program and saving as Wave will not change anything, and certainly not the length.

Arny Krueger imported them into Cool Edit Pro as raw little-endian audio data, according to a post on Hydrogen Audio. (The "sowt" AIFF standard was introduced long after CEP was replaced by Adobe Audition.) His file lengths will thus also include the heading metadata interpreted as though it were audio data.

The WAV files I sent you and others were exact equivalents of the original AIFFs, which Bias Peak 6 could recognize and load correctly.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
Which is it? Audible or inaudible?

The listener (and all of the problems they introduce into an otherwise nearly perfect picture) appears to be putty in the hands of the creative objectivist.

Quote:

Quote:
Which is it? Audible or inaudible?

The listener (and all of the problems they introduce into an otherwise nearly perfect picture) appears to be putty in the hands of the creative objectivist.

Right you are. Damn listeners.

There is a thread looking at measurable differences between cables. Ethan says these measured differences are inaudible.

We did a blind listening trial and identified differences between cables. Ethan says something had to be broken for this to occur.

If it's measurable, we aren't allowed to hear the difference, but if we can hear the difference in a blind trial, we aren't allowed to have been using products that weren't broken.

We did the trial at a Hi Fi show, but Ethan says he won't go to shows because he's seen it all.

Ethan says a recording can sound different one day to the next, but that he's never been fooled into hearing differences between pieces of gear.

Ethan's take: "Yeah, I acknowledge a recording may sound differently to me on different days, but gear never does."

DBT is the gold standard for identifying speaker preference, but when you're Ethan, DBT is trumped by his sighted preferences.

It seems very convenient to be an Ethan-style objectivist!

Quote:

Quote:
Actual lengths were 5:39.984 (before) and 5:39.758 (after).

Then we must have different files, not just AIFF and Wave equivalents. My files are 5:41:853 and 5:40:906.

As received, IOW the AIFF files simply converted to WAV, I found the files were 5:41.866 and 5:40.919.

For some reason, the software I used (CEP 2.1) added 13 milliseconds to each file as compared to yours. That does not bother me, since it is so small and consistent.

The numbers I just gave are for trimmed files, not for the files as received. I trimmed off everything I judged to not be part of the actual audio track on the LP.

I trimmed the impulse (presumably from dropping the needle) and LP noise prior to the actual start of music. About 649 msec was trimmed off the front of file one, and about 627 msec on file two. Admittedly this is partially a judgement call on my part, from 50 to 100 MSec of it. The rest of the lead-in including the impulse at the start is clearly not part of the music.

A similar process was applied to the end of the file. At the end of the file the end of the fade-out was more difficult to ascertain. I anchored my estimate of the end of the fade out on a very distinct wave segment that was in the fade-out, so that my judgement of the end of the fade-out was at least consistent. That reference point was about 4.086 seconds from the end of AIFF file 1, and 3.316 seconds from the end of AIFF file 2. After trimming, the reference point was about 2.861 seconds from the end of either trimmed file.

Quote:

Loading an AIFF file into an audio editor program and saving as Wave will not change anything, and certainly not the length.

Well, nothing significant. The actual difference was 13 milliseconds. In files that were about 540,000 milliseconds long. 0.0025 of a percent difference, more or less.

Quote:

Quote:
The over-all FFT analyses, and found that the "after" file had a signficiant treble roll-off. I'm talking -3 dB @ 10 Khz, still increasing at 18 KHz.

I don't see that either here, at least not when examining the entire files.

I used CEP's FFT analyzer, 65536 points, Blackman-Harris windowing on the trimmed wave. If you select the whole wave and scan it, CEP applies the FFT repeatedly and averages.

Why not just listen and report what y'all hear?

Quote:
you're the one who brought up total time as a criticism.

Not so, I pointed that out as hard proof of the timing errors, which BTW never happens with digital audio.

Clearly the instantaneous timing errors within the files are far worse than 0.07 percent. I don't have a direct way to measure the wow, or at least I don't think I do. Maybe an FFT can do that, but I've never tried it before. However, I know the instantaneous deviation is "much worse" than 0.07 percent because I could hear it when I tried to null the files. The audio phased in and out very badly. A tiny wow variation would make only a tiny variance in the comb filter effect. What I heard was sweeping up and down wildly.

Quote:
If the variations within that time span are "far worse," you should be pulling data, not saying, "surely."

Arny probably knows how to do that. Arny?

And Buddha, if Arny gives you numbers that are indeed "much worse" than 0.07 percent, will you apologize for being a jerk and send me $100?

Quote:
Did you hear a difference?

Between the before and after demag? No, I heard no difference. I did hear a few LP ticks and pops though.

Is The Buddha now defending LPs as superior to CDs?

--Ethan

Quote:
The WAV files I sent you and others were exact equivalents of the original AIFFs

Thanks for clarifying John. Now the only mystery is why I don't see the After version as down 3+ dB at 10 KHz.

--Ethan

Quote:
Why not just listen and report what y'all hear?

I did, and I said I heard no difference.

Yes. Damn Listeners!

Fool the ear, ignore the eye. Fidelity to an unfaithful original. Measured illusions. It's no wonder we spend so much time typing about the enjoyment of listening to music on a hi-fi. Like reading about running shoes.

Quote:
Why not just listen and report what y'all hear?

I guess you didn't read the part where I did listen and did report what I heard?

I can't believe that you pull this dumb trick right after berating people for not reading the thread.

Quote:
Between the before and after demag? No, I heard no difference. I did hear a few LP ticks and pops though.

Is The Buddha now defending LPs as superior to CDs?

If you heard no difference, then I guess your concerns about the total time difference and the 'wildy' sweeping wow are irrelevent, right?

Then, this: "Is The Buddha now defending LPs as superior to CDs?"

Nice fake out, but you got caught. You are changing the subject!

The question was the impact on audibility regarding your criticisms of how the files measured, not claiming LP superior or inferior to CD.

I saw Arny's data, you didn't hear a 3 dB difference at what frequency that got progressively larger as the frequency went up?

You claim listeners prefer tilted up HF sound, but ignore the measured data that disagrees with you?

You claim LP adds glare at a certain frequency to give the illusion of HF data, but there is no data to support that claim.

Dude, measurements show you to be incorrect.

"No, I heard no difference."

Well, based on the objective data, you sure should have! You get worked up about wow you claim is present and worthy of criticism, but 3 dB differences, and greater, are not audible to you?

I appreciate your confession in this regard and will keep it in mind when you make future audibility claims. If you can't pick up greater than 3 dB differences, how measurably different does something have to be before you can hear it?

Really, "I heard no difference" and yet you quibble with a 0.07% total time difference and claim there is 'wildly' sweeping wow. Geez, pick a direction.