Michael wrote,

"First off, if I were you I would consider not posting those company names unless you have approval from them to be used in your debating. You using them for a discussion like this may hurt their business since this is indeed Stereophile. I encourage you to give this some thought. This is not some random opinion forum even though some of this goes on here."

The companies I listed are not hiding the fact that they use cryo, they actually advertise that they cryogenically treat their cables so I doubt they would object too much. They are not trying to sweep it under the carpet like some people. Maybe you should give it some more thought. Thanks for your random opinion anyway.

Michael also wrote,

"Second, I have in no way said that cryo treating is the same as freezer treating."

I never said you did. Who would say that? Nobody.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff wrote:

Now, if you had all the time in the world and the patience of Job you would find out that things get pretty complicated with trying to color CDs because in order to get the best out of the particular CD a scheme of different colors must be employed. And that scheme must be arrived at by experimentation for EACH CD.So painting the edge of the CDs won't work unless you use the right colour

So what you're saying is that I should take each and any of my 2,000+ CDs and paint them green... then listen to them and wash those that sound worse, then paint them cyan, then listen again and wash again and paint them magenta, then...

Well sorry but until you come with a decent way of getting predictable results (i.e. if label is b&w paint them green, if label is red paint them burgundy etc.) your "improvement method" is just plain BS!

iosiP wrote:

Geoff wrote:

Now, if you had all the time in the world and the patience of Job you would find out that things get pretty complicated with trying to color CDs because in order to get the best out of the particular CD a scheme of different colors must be employed. And that scheme must be arrived at by experimentation for EACH CD.So painting the edge of the CDs won't work unless you use the right colour

So what you're saying is that I should take each and any of my 2,000+ CDs and paint them green... then listen to them and wash those that sound worse, then paint them cyan, then listen again and wash again and paint them magenta, then...

Well sorry but until you come with a decent way of getting predictable results (i.e. if label is b&w paint them green, if label is red paint them burgundy etc.) your "improvement method" is just plain BS!

Im afraid you have completely misunderstood my post. Don't worry I'm getting used to it. Can I suggest that if you can't remember anything from graduate school, assuming for the purposes of the discussion you actually went to graduate school, or any school, which is becoming increasingly unlikely, you run out and pick up a 4th grade text book on color and turn to the section about how certain colors absorb certain other colors and how colors are waves and, like any other waves, interfere with each other. Now, off to the local elementary school library with you!

Geoff Kait
Machinadynamica.com

iosiP wrote:

Geoff your personal attacks prove you're out of arguments. But then it wouldn't be the first time, would it?
Took my placebos and had a good night of sleep, please try to do the same: after all, you're an old man and I would hate to cause you a stroke!

If you could just be right on the facts 50% of the time I'd be happy. Don't you have like a back up or something over there?

Geoff at Machina Dynamica

What we found when doing the different color tests in "97" was that not only does it have an affect, but you have to make the different color bands more wide or less wide depending on the recording. Also that what you apply the color with as far as type of ink or paint made a difference.

Testing this further, we found that this is also CD Player dependant. The treated CD's once figured out work for that Player specifically and by switching players the sound many times got worse.

in regard to the other companies

Geoff I'm only saying this because the CD freezing should not be tied to the cable cryo. These designers have their method and their reasoning for their method. If you paint the picture that they are all in the same camp and people read that the freezing has not delivered this gets into peoples heads. If someone does a cryo/freezing test and it is not successful they may make the judgement that this aplies to everything audio and that may not look good. It's your life, just trying to make these test more specific and less broad based.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

michael green wrote:

What we found when doing the different color tests in "97" was that not only does it have an affect, but you have to make the different color bands more wide or less wide depending on the recording. Also that what you apply the color with as far as type of ink or paint made a difference.

Testing this further, we found that this is also CD Player dependant. The treated CD's once figured out work for that Player specifically and by switching players the sound many times got worse.

in regard to the other companies

Geoff I'm only saying this because the CD freezing should not be tied to the cable cryo. These designers have their method and their reasoning for their method. If you paint the picture that they are all in the same camp and people read that the freezing has not delivered this gets into peoples heads. If someone does a cryo/freezing test and it is not successful they may make the judgement that this aplies to everything audio and that may not look good. It's your life, just trying to make these test more specific and less broad based.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

At the risk of repeating myself, most of the scattered light inside the CD transport is invisible, above 700 nm, as the nominal wavelength of the laser is 780 nm. Thus, if one is using colors like green to absorb scattered laser light inside the CD transport one is only absorbing light that is below 700 nm. Since the near infrared spectrum - the portion above 700 nm - cannot be influenced by ANY colors, not even black, then it's probably safe to conclude we're only affecting, what, about 30% of the scattered light inside the CD transport. The rest is not amenable to green or any other color. Another big matzo ball hanging out there is the use of the two colors PURPLE and ORANGE, which I happen to find quite effective. The issue I have with those two colors in particular is that they have no real relevance to the issue of color absorption, since neither color is a complementary color (absorber) of wavelengths we would expect to find inside the CD transport while the disc is spinning. Red, yes, maybe red-orange, and the invisible light above 700 nm up to around 840 nm or so. So, this is a big mystery - why does purple and orange improve the sound? If anyone has any brilliant ideas I'm all ears. Another mystery, if you ask me, is why black works on the inner edge but not on the outer edge.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Excuse me......
I thought was in the thread about compression & dynamic range.....

Anyway, sorry to report there is nothing to report.
Still waiting for delivery of the 'standard' disc.

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

"As far as I'm concerned, anyone can bring whatever they want into the discussion. I might even start a thread as a sort of "12 Step Program" for audiophiles where we can acknowledge we actually like some bad records and help each other recover." catch

Except for member attacks I think we're pretty much on focus here covering things that have to do with dynamic range.

thanks for your testing Bill & Dan & Costin, not sure who else is doing tests on this

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

iosiP wrote:

Different pressing plants, different material composition and, finally, different care for packing & handling may lead to a different BER on two copies of the same disk. To avoid this problem I did experiment the cryo treatment in a different way: I copied a very well recorded CD on my computer (Tsuyoshi Yamamoto Trio: Autumn In Seattle on FIM) using XLD set on "try until you get it right", then I frose the CD and copied it again. This allowed me to compare both copies on the fly using the computer as a source. Conclusions were funny: cryo-ing did nothing to the sound.
And now comes the surprise: I compared the rip logs for both version and guess what - the non-frozen CD was ripped at an average speed of 6.3x while after freezing the speed dropped to 3.8x. What does this mean? Well, simply that the unit has to re-read the information many time and "slow down" in order to get a perfect read-out.

OK, so what is the relevance of this finding? The read-until-right trick only works when ripping a CD. When playing it in a CD player you need the signal in real time, so it just looks the servo has more work on a cryo-ed CD. Eventually, the reading is not perfect so the interpolator has to fill in the blanks with a mathematical guesstimate. Yes, this will provide a "cleaner" sound but also one devoid of micro-dynamics and thus lacking timbral richness (or "wholeness", as Michael puts it).

Huh? - what evidence do you have that two examples of the same CD are not identical, I mean aside from idle naysayer speculation? Even if the CDs are produced in different plants or at different times, why would they be necessarily different, assuming they start off with the same digital master? Feel free to post evidence here if you have any.

Geoff Kait
Machina Erotica

geoffkait wrote:

Huh? - what evidence do you have that two examples of the same CD are not identical, I mean aside from idle naysayer speculation? Even if the CDs are produced in different plants or at different times, why would they be necessarily different, assuming they start off with the same digital master

Because I tested some pairs of "identical" CDs and got a different BER (that's Bit Error Rate). Any idea how CDs are produced? They're stamped, same as LPs, and as the stamper ages... well, you get it? Not to mention variabilities in the purity of polycarbonate, spurious vibrations (just thought you'll know at least this: some silicon wafer manufacturing plants stop production when freight trains pass more than one mile away) and many more. Why do you think some music companies only use specific pressing plants?

"You want the truth? You can't handle the truth"
[A Few Good Men]

iosiP wrote:

geoffkait wrote:

Huh? - what evidence do you have that two examples of the same CD are not identical, I mean aside from idle naysayer speculation? Even if the CDs are produced in different plants or at different times, why would they be necessarily different, assuming they start off with the same digital master

Because I tested some pairs of "identical" CDs and got a different BER (that's Bit Error Rate). Any idea how CDs are produced? They're stamped, same as LPs, and as the stamper ages... well, you get it? Not to mention variabilities in the purity of polycarbonate, spurious vibrations (just thought you'll know at least this: some silicon wafer manufacturing plants stop production when freight trains pass more than one mile away) and many more. Why do you think some music companies only use specific pressing plants?

"You want the truth? You can't handle the truth"
[A Few Good Men]

Oh, I can handle the truth, it's just that you have so very little of it to share. So, let me ask, mr smarty pants, how different were the BERs? That is if you can remember. Even better, do you have the snapshots?

Even more pertinent to the whole dynamic range issue is how important really is a difference in BER, assuming there is one? At what point does BER become audible! or even measurable in terms of its affect on Dynamic Range or any other audio parameter you might wish to bring up, like Signal to Noise Ratio, frequency response, channel separation, total harmonic distortion, etc. If the largest BER of two "identical" discs is too small to have any impact on the sound who cares? On the measured sound OR the subjective sound.

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." Albert Einstein

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

You insist on evidence from others, yet provide little or any of your own from your own testing.

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

You insist on evidence from others, yet provide little or any of your own from your own testing.

We've been over all of this already. It is not up to me to do the testing, nor to provide test results if I did do testing. It's up to independent third parties. I'm very tempted to put a nice Hello here but I will refrain. This is the whole idea behind why audio magazines test the electronics and speakers they get in for review and why manufacturers do not provide test results typically, although they might provide specs. The independent third party in the case of the treated Modern Times CD is W. Hanna, the person undoubtedly waiting around patiently for the untreated version of the disc to show up today. But your comment is nevertheless interesting, one wonders if we shall ever see test results for the Green Pen, Mpingo Disc, the Clever Little Clock, silver rainbow foil, The Red X Coordinate Pen, the Radio Shack Bulk Tape Eraser, VPI brick, NASA grade ceramic Super DH cones, Schumann frequency generator, Dark Matter invisible light absorber, the new super expensive High Fidelity cables that everyone has been raving and ranting about that uses mumetal for the conductor, Vibraplane iso platform, specialty wall outlet duplex covers, silver/gold contact enhancer, cryo'd anything, etc.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green wrote:

"As far as I'm concerned, anyone can bring whatever they want into the discussion. I might even start a thread as a sort of "12 Step Program" for audiophiles where we can acknowledge we actually like some bad records and help each other recover." catch

Except for member attacks I think we're pretty much on focus here covering things that have to do with dynamic range.

thanks for your testing Bill & Dan & Costin, not sure who else is doing tests on this

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

My dry and often sarcastic sense of humor is often misinterpreted on the internet.
Most likely due to my poor writing skills.

I was just joking around, Michael.
Apologies duly submitted.

Carry on, Gents.

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

Hi Bill

Isn't that funny how that happens in writting compared to live. You got me lol.

But I've readjusted my dynamic range so I'm ok now.

:)

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

First, you said there are no differences detween CDs. When I proved the opposite you started arguing if those differences are audible or not.
Well yes, sometimes they're audible, sometimes they're not. Now how do you want me to "prove" that I heard differences? The same way you can "prove" that a cryoed CD sounds different from a non-cryoed one: you listen and you hear a different sound.
And BTW, this is also the only way to "prove" that a lot of your or the Belts' tweaks work: by listening!

P.S.1 What you did is a logical fallacy called "changing the goalposts" (in the middle of the game).

P.S.2 If you don't stop using derogatory terms I will respond the same way. Last warning!

iosiP wrote:

First, you said there are no differences detween CDs. When I proved the opposite you started arguing if those differences are audible or not.
Well yes, sometimes they're audible, sometimes they're not. Now how do you want me to "prove" that I heard differences? The same way you can "prove" that a cryoed CD sounds different from a non-cryoed one: you listen and you hear a different sound.
And BTW, this is also the only way to "prove" that a lot of your or the Belts' tweaks work: by listening!

I'm afraid we're not quite on the same page. If one disc has a BER of 1X10-7 and the other has one of 5X10-7 (for example) one would NOT expect differences to show up in ANY audio parameter measurement such as Dynamic Range or Frequency Response or ANY listening test. Even though one BER IS 5 TIMES higher than the other one! Follow?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Hi Geoff

I'm sure you meant to say, your personal testing never ends, right?

For myself it's a 24/7 experience and has been since my teens. Third person is cool, but you have to own and be master of your own designs, practicing them continually and breaking new ground for yourself. In a variable world (which audio is) the options, combos and variations will never end, cause recordings themselves will continue to change forever along with the hardware that plays them. For example even in the weight change of components the way you approach designing is completely different light weight from heavy ones. The mechanics of this industry alone changes so rapidly that what works for one thing may miss the mark on the next by a mile. Even something as simple as CD treating has no, one sizes fits all, not by a long shot.

Costin is right on the money when he says one CD production run sounds different from the next. This is no secret amoung the CD production world, and there are reps out there selling their blanks as superior to the next all over the place. This has always been the case in music, my Lord, look at vinyl pressing machines. There are huge differences in sound between machines, even indentical brands and models.

The same goes for any audio component on the planet. Each item that rolls off that designers bench is different from the one before and after it. Again, variable tuning people, is the only way this story will end. It will be nice when we get past this stage of the hobby and on to the next, but in the meantime trying to push a for everyone "fixed" answer is not going to happen no matter how many times the repeat button is hit.

I also know that me pushing "tuning" sounds like a repeat to you guys who are not doing it yet. But looking at your own comments. Your heading toward tuning with every comment you make, and I'm loving it, cause you guys are seeing all the variables starting to come out and this will lead to either you thinking you have a reference and all else are wrong or that there is yet another chapter to this.

But with each thread your getting closer and closer and that's a good thing. Even seeing all the differences in the recordings is a great deal to think about. I was looking at this the other night and was making mental notes about even in the DR testing going on how some have got to be sitting wondering "these recordings really are quite different from each other". The math will hit sooner or later but it will hit.

"if a system is fixed, how does it adapt to all these different recordings?"

You notice that I have asked this many times yet no one has throw out an answer yet, beyond the thought that their system over all the others is the reference. This would mean that they have a system that changes with every recording to match the codes. Interesting, that sounds like tuning to me :)

you'll get there, just gotta let it sink in

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

michael green wrote:

Hi Geoff

I'm sure you meant to say, your personal testing never ends, right?

For myself it's a 24/7 experience and has been since my teens. Third person is cool, but you have to own and be master of your own designs, practicing them continually and breaking new ground for yourself. In a variable world (which audio is) the options, combos and variations will never end, cause recordings themselves will continue to change forever along with the hardware that plays them. For example even in the weight change of components the way you approach designing is completely different light weight from heavy ones. The mechanics of this industry alone changes so rapidly that what works for one thing may miss the mark on the next by a mile. Even something as simple as CD treating has no, one sizes fits all, not by a long shot.

Costin is right on the money when he says one CD production run sounds different from the next. This is no secret amoung the CD production world, and there are reps out there selling their blanks as superior to the next all over the place. This has always been the case in music, my Lord, look at vinyl pressing machines. There are huge differences in sound between machines, even indentical brands and models.

The same goes for any audio component on the planet. Each item that rolls off that designers bench is different from the one before and after it. Again, variable tuning people, is the only way this story will end. It will be nice when we get past this stage of the hobby and on to the next, but in the meantime trying to push a for everyone "fixed" answer is not going to happen no matter how many times the repeat button is hit.

I also know that me pushing "tuning" sounds like a repeat to you guys who are not doing it yet. But looking at your own comments. Your heading toward tuning with every comment you make, and I'm loving it, cause you guys are seeing all the variables starting to come out and this will lead to either you thinking you have a reference and all else are wrong or that there is yet another chapter to this.

But with each thread your getting closer and closer and that's a good thing. Even seeing all the differences in the recordings is a great deal to think about. I was looking at this the other night and was making mental notes about even in the DR testing going on how some have got to be sitting wondering "these recordings really are quite different from each other". The math will hit sooner or later but it will hit.

"if a system is fixed, how does it adapt to all these different recordings?"

You notice that I have asked this many times yet no one has throw out an answer yet, beyond the thought that their system over all the others is the reference. This would mean that they have a system that changes with every recording to match the codes. Interesting, that sounds like tuning to me :)

you'll get there, just gotta let it sink in

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

It doesn't look there will be a meeting down by the river after all. As much as I am in awe of your whole freewheelin' Elmer Gantry thing.

:-)

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

...that adjusted the lens' inclination for every CD in order to get the best possible read-out. Sorry I don't remember the brand and model, just know it was quite expensive. Of course, this was before the advent of memory buffers: now most machines read a portion of the CD several times at high speed, place the results in a buffer from which it is extracted at a defined pace - think MSB, Chord, Boulder, Rockna, Weiss and many other.

Now for a (limited) tuning, my speakers have each drive unit on a deparate alumunium plate so I use to fasten/unfasten slightly the bolts of the planar tweeters until I get the best HF extension but no "glare". The game is kind of funny but I may say I don't do it on a regular basis: I find that setting 8 torx screws each time I listen to a CD is kind of PITA. But then I am thinking about replacing them with hand-adjustable screws or even a mechanical frame allowing me to only adjust one screw per speaker... well, kind of work in progress.

Hi Costin

As we start to head more in the variable direction designers will come up with ways to make the tuning more simple or with wider strokes so there's not as much work. I have always seen myself as a bit of a Johnny Appleseed or cheerleader for the "Tune". First I had to build it for myself and that was a work of love, and never ends. Everytime I see someone do this in part or full blown I see a new hobbyist born again. It gives me a lot of joy to see listeners becoming masters of their own systems and music collections. Up here you guys see everyone happy with their sound, but in real life I deal everyday with folks who thought they were there only to find they want and need to go further. There are some wonderful listening madmen in the world, and their systems are usually the opposite from what we see in the industry. All kinds of adjustable stuff. Very fun and extremely innovative.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

ps: still working on my Buckethead collection

You wrote:

Geoff wrote:

Now, if you had all the time in the world and the patience of Job you would find out that things get pretty complicated with trying to color CDs because in order to get the best out of the particular CD a scheme of different colors must be employed. And that scheme must be arrived at by experimentation for EACH CD.

But then, you state it's not that complicated:

Geoff wrote:

you run out and pick up a 4th grade text book on color and turn to the section about how certain colors absorb certain other colors and how colors are waves and, like any other waves, interfere with each other.

So, I can figure out what color to use based on the complementarity of... what exactly? The dominant color of the label? The color of the laser beam? You don't tell it, you just rant about my studies (or lack thereof). But now, surprise:

Geoff wrote:

Another big matzo ball hanging out there is the use of the two colors PURPLE and ORANGE, which I happen to find quite effective. The issue I have with those two colors in particular is that they have no real relevance to the issue of color absorption, since neither color is a complementary color (absorber) of wavelengths we would expect to find inside the CD transport while the disc is spinning.

So all your education and experience do not allow you to select the "proper" color, but yet you ask me to select it based on 4th grade school books. How convenient! Now was I right to say:

iosiP wrote:

Well sorry but until you come with a decent way of getting predictable results (i.e. if label is b&w paint them green, if label is red paint them burgundy etc.) your "improvement method" is just plain BS!

???

Elmer, lol.

Sorry to disappoint, I'm just a designer applying the oldest technology in music mechanics to a modern world.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

I mean, I know a lot of speaker manufacturers that offer limited tuning facilities for their speakers, and even tuning of negative feedback for their amplifiers. However, most of them are scared that people would misuse those tuning facilities to get a sound that would misrepresent their products... and the fact is they are (sometimes) right: I had the chance - or the bad luck, depending on how you put it - to listen to a pair of JMlab Grande Utopia EM: the HF level was set on high, the LF was boosted to the max using the EM generator and everything sounded like shit (a big chunk of shit, to be specific). Now if I were the manufacturer of those (otherwise excellent) speakers I would put a contract on the idiot, because any visitor would conclude JMLab (Focal) speakers sound like a pile of crap. I did fix the guy's system but something makes me think he reverted to the same disco sound within minutes of my departure. So yes, allowing your customers to tune also means allowing them to "de-tune", and this is done at your risk. So don't wonder why most manufacturers won't allow it!

There's nothing to be afraid of. When the industry goes tunable there will be guys coming out of the wood work to tune other's systems. That's what happened when this first started and there was a pretty big buzz about it and a lot of fun. Once people get past the fear and that this is not another audiophile snow job, the hobby will do just fine with tuning.

First they have to see that tuning is what they have been waiting or looking for. After that, it's a whole new ball game for the guy sitting there saying, "the sound isn't what I want, but what do I do", or "great sound cost too much". This same thing happened back in the early 90's but like I said I moved on and didn't follow through with seeing the plan to it's fruition, my bad.

One great thing about our hobby is it knows how to get a buzz going and with Stereophile forum being so gracious with me coming up and sharing, it's really only a matter of time, and some are already turning. Actually some wondered where I went, and so now that I'm back their getting ahold of us and new guys are getting into it too.

Fixed systems when you think about it have ran their course. There's not enough audiophiles now to support the newer products and the desire to spend $50,000 and up over and over has gotten old, especially when the same problem exist. It goes like this. I bought my system and it's great, but....

That can only happen so many times before someone settles giving up, or they start to look for another way, something that delivers without the system to system jumping. A huge part of the hobby population are tired and done. Look at how many guys come to me and say "it's over". They say "hook me up with a simple setup and teach me to tune". In no time these guys pass up where they were and go way further, and "it's cheap" as compared to the current high end. I have no doubt there will be extremely expensive tunable systems too, but here's the thing. High end audio has made it so the listener has to spend tons to get started, not any more. With tuning you can start at whatever level you want.

As far as someone learning how to tune, piece a cake, and there's a support system to help the person, which is totally different from someone buying components and being stuck. If someone can setup a table, they can tune, play a guitar, they can tune. It's really not that hard to get to the first level and that's mostly about looking at the system and space as being one, and stepping back to simple instead of complicated. Honestly it's an ego issue more than anything. A lot of folks in this hobby have built up this grand idea of a system and it's hard for them to move to something that to them seems less impressive money and looks and status wise. It has nothing to do with the sound. For those who tune, they have found the way.

Costin you said this "So don't wonder why most manufacturers won't allow it!". To be straight up about this most manufacturers have no idea about tuning. They've got a learning curve ahead of them.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

iosiP wrote:

You wrote:

Geoff wrote:

Now, if you had all the time in the world and the patience of Job you would find out that things get pretty complicated with trying to color CDs because in order to get the best out of the particular CD a scheme of different colors must be employed. And that scheme must be arrived at by experimentation for EACH CD.

But then, you state it's not that complicated:

Geoff wrote:

you run out and pick up a 4th grade text book on color and turn to the section about how certain colors absorb certain other colors and how colors are waves and, like any other waves, interfere with each other.

So, I can figure out what color to use based on the complementarity of... what exactly? The dominant color of the label? The color of the laser beam? You don't tell it, you just rant about my studies (or lack thereof). But now, surprise:

Geoff wrote:

Another big matzo ball hanging out there is the use of the two colors PURPLE and ORANGE, which I happen to find quite effective. The issue I have with those two colors in particular is that they have no real relevance to the issue of color absorption, since neither color is a complementary color (absorber) of wavelengths we would expect to find inside the CD transport while the disc is spinning.

So all your education and experience do not allow you to select the "proper" color, but yet you ask me to select it based on 4th grade school books. How convenient! Now was I right to say:

iosiP wrote:

Well sorry but until you come with a decent way of getting predictable results (i.e. if label is b&w paint them green, if label is red paint them burgundy etc.) your "improvement method" is just plain BS!

???

I did not invent reality. I am simply trying to convey the complexity of the situation. Why do audiophiles seem to demand an easy answer, a single solution to solve all their problems, the SILVER BULLET? To get a handle on what is possible, the potential, just take any CD, disregard the color of the label for the time being, use permanent transparent markers like Sharpie to paint the outer edge blue green, or even green if you can't find blue green, and use black to paint the inner edge. That alone should improve the sound of most discs significantly. Keep in mind that more complex color schemes can improve upon that first order treatment. It's an approximation but a good approximation. You're way over thinking this. We wouldn't want your head to explode, would we?

This whole coloring process that now involves black, cyan, violet and orange did not happen overnight. But I think I can say without fear of contradiction that this relatively straightforward, though elaborate, coloring scheme will DOUBLE the performance of most CDs on a well tuned system. Think of it as a short-cut to Xanadu. The reason the color of the label is important is that the entire inside space of the CD transport is filled with the scattered light from the CD laser, so the color of the label can easily interfere or influence the light inside the transport. Of course, the primary reason why all of this is important is that scattered light can get into the photodetector where it is misinterpreted as real signal since the photodetector will accept any signal that is above 70% of the average power of the reflected beam (real signal).

Sidebar: a complementary color is one that absorbs a certain color, so it's that color's complement. For example CYAN is the complementary color of RED. So CYAN absorbs the color RED. RED is the visible color of the laser beam. As I already said a couple times the primary wavelength of the laser beam is invisible. The mystery of the colors ORANGE and PURPLE is that their complementary colors are not related to the laser beam's color, if you get my drift, yet they improve the sound.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Michael wrote,

"Costin is right on the money when he says one CD production run sounds different from the next. This is no secret amoung the CD production world, and there are reps out there selling their blanks as superior to the next all over the place. This has always been the case in music, my Lord, look at vinyl pressing machines. There are huge differences in sound between machines, even indentical brands and models.

The same goes for any audio component on the planet. Each item that rolls off that designers bench is different from the one before and after it. Again, variable tuning people, is the only way this story will end. It will be nice when we get past this stage of the hobby and on to the next, but in the meantime trying to push a for everyone "fixed" answer is not going to happen no matter how many times the repeat button is hit."

So, by your logic the testing that will be done on the treated CD versus the untreated CD might result in the untreated CD sounding better than the treated one. And the untreated CD measuring better than the treated disc. That is what you are claiming, that the differences between the "identical" discs can often be greater than differences obtained by treating the discs, and that any test is INVALID unless both discs can somehow be proven identical. This is exactly the same logic they used when putting witches on trial way back when, that if the woman died when submerged in the dunking chair that proved she WASN'T a witch since only witches can survive the dunking. Look, the test on the treated CD is only one test, it's not intended to PROVE anything. It's only supposed to be EVIDENCE that treated CDs are measurably better than untreated ones. I say let's wait until the test results come back before developing too strong a case of the angst. Addendum: if the untreated disc measures 2 dB or better For Dynamic Range and sounds better subjectively than the treated CD I promise I will eat a bug. Scout's honor.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

The 'standard' disc arrived late yesterday.
It has been ripped to my hard drive and Dan will have it tomorrow along with Geoff's treated disc.

Dan will will then make his rip & conduct the subjective testing.

We hope to have Geoff's disc on the way back to him shortly.

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

Geoff said

"So, by your logic the testing that will be done on the treated CD versus the untreated CD might result in the untreated CD sounding better than the treated one. And the untreated CD measuring better than the treated disc. That is what you are claiming, that the differences between the "identical" discs can often be greater than differences obtained by treating the discs, and that any test is INVALID unless both discs can somehow be proven identical. This is exactly the same logic they used when putting witches on trial way back when, that if the woman died when submerged in the dunking chair that proved she WASN'T a witch since only witches can survive the dunking. Look, the test on the treated CD is only one test, it's not intended to PROVE anything. It's only supposed to be EVIDENCE that treated CDs are measurably better than untreated ones. I say let's wait until the test results come back before developing too strong a case of the angst. Addendum: if the untreated disc measures 2 dB or better For Dynamic Range and sounds better subjectively than the treated CD I promise I will eat a bug. Scout's honor."

mg

I'm not in the assuming business Geoff. Your answer to me seemed like you were wanting to answer Costin and not me. You didn't want to send me your treated CD so I wouldn't make any judgement one way or another. Maybe your treatment restores what was lost by the freezing, who knows. I have no clue what it sounds like until I listen to it.

I look at what Bill & Dan are doing as something completely different from what I did. They might have a totally different experience, I don't know, I'm not there. Our two tests are not the same, and for me to put them in the same camp as what I am doing would be odd. That for sure would be a lot of assuming, and I don't think that is the intent from anyone.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Michael wrote,

"Maybe your treatment restores what was lost by the freezing, who knows. I have no clue what it sounds like until I listen to it."

That's without a doubt the funniest line you've come up with so far. And you say you are not in the assuming business. :-)

When you ass-u-me something you make an ass out of me and Uma Thruman. - old audiophile expression

I'm pretty sure I already said that I treat a CD at least ten different ways. In fact! I posted the specific treatments. I hate to be judgmental but unless you are treating YOUR CDs at least half as much as mine you are at least 3 dB behind the power curve. One *assumes* you don't buy into the whole scattered light argument. Or did that discussion just go WHOOOSH?

When you control the mail you control...information. - Newman

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

...that the same unit has more problems reading the same CD after freezing it. So unless you are ass-u-ming that the CD player works differently than the one in my computer it just means that freezing makes the CD less readable!
Now if you tell me that a less readable CD sounds better, well I'll call the whole thing a BS.
Period!

iosiP wrote:

...that the same unit has more problems reading the same CD after freezing it. So unless you are ass-u-ming that the CD player works differently than the one in my computer it just means that freezing makes the CD less readable!
Now if you tell me that a less readable CD sounds better, well I'll call the whole thing a BS.
Period!

I am sending out an email notifying all 50,000 others who play cryo'd and frozen CDs urging them to throw all of their CDs away immediately. Thanks for the information.

Have you tried microwaving the frozen CDs to see if that reverses the situation? Have you tried microwaving your computer? In case anyone can't tell whether I'm being sarcastic here in this last paragraph I'm being half sarcastic.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

I did a formal poll and identified 45,656 who have tried cryo. The poll internals were interesting with 56% under the age of 50, 45% living on the west coast and 23% driving a Prius and 98% indicating they liked sushi. Lots of sushi lovers out there. I think the poll did an excellent job in its statistical sampling.

Lets stick with the results presented on this particular debate shall we.

Aren't you a bit curious why the physical read speed went down on the freezer frozen treated disk. I am.

This is your treatment, conducted to your and May's specifications.

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

I did a formal poll and identified 45,656 who have tried cryo. The poll internals were interesting with 56% under the age of 50, 45% living on the west coast and 23% driving a Prius and 98% indicating they liked sushi. Lots of sushi lovers out there. I think the poll did an excellent job in its statistical sampling.

Lets stick with the results presented on this particular debate shall we.

Aren't you a bit curious why the physical read speed went down on the freezer frozen treated disk. I am.

This is your treatment, conducted to your and May's specifications.

Now that I think about it I'm not really that interested in the Whys and the Hows of negative results and I have not idea where Costin went wrong or why his computer behaves as he says. But it's definitely true that his results are totally out of whack with reality, with all the folks who have experienced cryo and freezing over the last twenty years. From the I don't know how many cryo labs there are now. This must be the conspiracy of the century! Yes, I realize there have been some reports that these methods don't make sense or either do nothing or hurt the sound. I even know a couple of folks high up the food chain who said as much. As I've stated previously these reports are outliers, and I'm not saying I don't believe the reports but I do think they can be explained. But not necessarily by me personally. As I'm fond of pointing out, Stereophile magazine published the letter from George Tice, the Tice Tice Clock dude, who outlined 4 reasons audiophiles sometimes have negative results with tweaks. If you like I can cut and paste the Tice letter to Stereophile here. One thing is for sure, take just about any audio device you can think of, I don't care what it is, you will always be able to find someone somewhere who doesn't like it. That goes for Schumann frequency devices, Mpingo discs, Green Pen, Power Conditions, WA quantum chips, VPI Brick, Shakti Stone, CD fluids, demagnetization, ionization, vibration damping, vibration isolation, contact enhancers, crystals, rainbow foil, room treatments of all types, what have you. If you are curious about why Costin's computer acted the way it did does that mean you are volunteering to get to the bottom of it and report back?

Sincerely,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

"But it's definitely true that his results are totally out of whack with reality, with all the folks who have experienced cryo and freezing over the last twenty years. From the I don't know how many cryo labs there are now. This must be the conspiracy of the century! Yes, I realize there have been some reports that these methods don't make sense or either do nothing or hurt the sound. I even know a couple of folks high up the food chain who said as much."

I agree, you have two sides to this.

But, you are still attempting to infer that since a certain number of people use and like this treatment without the numbers that have tried it and dont like it, that this indisputably proves your case there is an "improvement" and all other results are outliers.

Let's try it this way. I see your 50,000 who like this treatment and raise you 100,000 that have tried it but don't like it. See how speculative, unverified and cherry picked numbers can skew a debate.

toledo wrote:

"But it's definitely true that his results are totally out of whack with reality, with all the folks who have experienced cryo and freezing over the last twenty years. From the I don't know how many cryo labs there are now. This must be the conspiracy of the century! Yes, I realize there have been some reports that these methods don't make sense or either do nothing or hurt the sound. I even know a couple of folks high up the food chain who said as much."

I agree, you have two sides to this.

But, you are still attempting to infer that since a certain number of people use and like this treatment without the numbers that have tried it and dont like it, that this indisputably proves your case there is an "improvement" and all other results are outliers.

Let's try it this way. I see your 50,000 who like this treatment and raise you 100,000 that have tried it but don't like it. See how speculative, unverified and cherry picked numbers can skew a debate.

Well, actually I am not trying to infer anything. And there aren't really two sides. This is not like the debate over solid state vs Tubes, where there are many proponents of each side of the debate. You're trying to make this out to be a real debate, with two sides, and I'm telling you for the second or third time it's not. Think of it like the "debate" over who brought down the World Trade Center towers on 9-11, could it have been the US?, is not really a debate, it's just that there are some naysayers, some conspiracy theorists, with some puffed up evidence. But, you'll have to trust me on this, and I don't care HOW good the "evidence" looks in this case, or how CONVINCING - the US did NOT bring down the World Trade Center. I'm simply saying that if 50,000 folks say Limburger cheese stinks and 5 folks say they like the smell of Limburger cheese, I'd say there's a pretty good chance that the cheese stinks. Same goes for freezing and cryo. And that's if I was an objective observer, which I'm obviously not. I can certainly understand how someone who has no experience might not be in a good position to figure out who is right. I can also see why you might be looking real hard to find a fatal flaw. So, it looks like you're coming down on the side of the Micro fissures, eh?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

See it as you wish including your juvenile taunts. I am making my case on preferences and personal choice and not the efficacy of the treatment. That's what listeners do .. they decide what works for them.

I am waiting to see what this treatment does based on the results from this forum..not from an argument that 50,000 other people like it.

You seem to be having problems with the simple objective position that for every person that likes this treatment, there likely are many who dont.

Saying 50,000 like this treatment only proves that they like it...nothing else.

If you want to argue for the herd mentality, go for it .. No herd mentality for me and I hope other readers feel the same.

I think it will be helpful when Bill & Dan give their listening notes, but also I would think others who listen to Geoff's treated CD's would come up on the forum and give their notes.

I know for me it's nice when some of the tunees come up and share their experiences.

As we've been saying "it's all about listening". I can't imagine someone would be in a hobby about music and not use the music as their reference point. The other parts are interesting as these ratings certainly have been, but it comes down to people playing the music on a system and hearing how the system reacts to that music.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

I want to jump back to a time before ad hominem attacks and misdirected hostility to the original question. I think there is a woeful lack of dynamics on much of today's music - especially in the pop sector. There is a lot if pop music where the music is so compressed, they don't use SPL spikes to define the beat, but volume DROPOUTS. I refer to this sort of thing as "club pop."

I really like the dynamic range database website, even though it makes me sad about what I listen to. See, I am young, and I like loud and dirty guitars and vocal stylings about as far-removed from Boccelli as is possible. But never Twisted Sister - too cheesy.

But when I look up Mastodon, they actually have surprisingly good dynamic range for a metal band - one that screams often. Baroness, sadly, does not. But Just yesterday I was listening to Down's first album, NOLA, and it occurred to me: how dynamic can a guitar played through a Big Muff Pi fuzz pedal be? For those unfamiliar, that stomp box clips so hard that it essentially makes a square wave. Anyway, then I felt better better about the dynamic range number it had - the fact that the difference between RMS (basically the near constant level of the incredibly compressed guitar sound) and the peak (the drums) is as big as it is seems to indicate that they compressed the overall recording rather little, but the guitars were inherently dynamically flat. And that fore awesomeness's sake.

Also, it strikes me as intriguing that the qualities guitarists tend to relish in amplifiers, effects, and their overall tone are the very enemies of audio reproduction. That is why guitarists' cabinets are generally terrible at playing music back, and they wouldn't run a Marshall Plexi through a Magico. Basically, in the early days of guitar, somebody turned it up so loud that it was creating audio "defects," and he thought, "Hmmmm... This is like me giving the MAN the middle finger, but with my axe!" And then he was happy. It is kinda like the Kinks' guitarist cutting his speaker cone's paper to get his distortion.

This also highlights other factors at work in audio reproduction. When playing back sound that includes heavily clipped (hyper-compressed) guitar, the playback must capabilities far beyond dynamic range. The harmonic complexity jumps, and the slew rate goes all crazy. Guitar amps and cabs are designed to be bludgeoned, but our stereos often are not. Guitarists are actually playing the "sonic defects" inherent in their tubes, gain structures, and speakers as part of the instrument. Rage against the machine once included a segment of Korean radio picked up in the studio by the guitarist's rig ("Sleep Now in the Fire").

Brian out.

Toledo wrote,

"I am waiting to see what this treatment does based on the results from this forum..not from an argument that 50,000 other people like it."

Yeah, right. So, it sounds like you're saying the argument that 2 people like to is a good argument? Oh, I get it, 2 people you trust.

Besides, Hearsay evidence Is inadmissible in court. Don't you watch Judy Judy?

Toledo also wrote,

"If you want to argue for the herd mentality, go for it .. No herd mentality for me and I hope other readers feel the same."

Huh? Looks like you are the one who hasn't heard it. It appears you actually go with the UNHEARD mentality. I have been using cryo and freezing since like forever. I go with the HEARD mentality.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Give it a rest Geoff, will ya. We know where you stand, okay.

Let this test playout without the sideline cheer leading and play-by-play debunking of results presented using dismissive statements like expectation bias or "wacky" outlier arguments.

What are you afraid of. The treatment should speak for itself.

toledo wrote:

Give it a rest Geoff, will ya. We know where you stand, okay.

Let this test playout without the sideline cheer leading and play-by-play debunking of results presented using dismissive statements like expectation bias or "wacky" outlier arguments.

What are you afraid of. The treatment should speak for itself.

Huh? I'm trying to influence or manipulate the test? You're kidding, right? So, that's your plan, to accuse me of influencing the test results when the results come in? That is SO funny! And yes, micro fissures is a whacky theory and I say that as a theoretical physicist and someone who actually took courses in atomic physics and strength of materials. You know, whereas the micro fissure theory was offered up by a person, while claiming to be a PhD in Information theory and a MS in signal processing, or some such thing, demonstrated very clearly he did not know the difference between an electric field and a magnetic field.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

Is that really what I stated? I will leave it up to others to decide and leave it at that.

On further reflection, what are you trying to accomplish? You will not allow contrarian results to be posted without kicking into debunk mode. Both Michael and Costin stated what they heard and their results seemed to concur and yet you insist they are wrong. I am sure you will come up with some cute little term for it like mind meld expectation bias or flat out say they don't have a clue.

Truth is, I don't think there is 50,000 that are doing this. I don't think there are more than maybe a couple hundred who even care. If there are, they sure are keeping quiet.

quotes from some audiophiles that have played with this
_________________________________________________

"I was able to readily hear the difference and greatly preferred the non-cryo discs. The cryo'd disc has a strange fatiguing smear to it."

"Yet I did hear differences. I felt that B (non-treated) was more natural sounding (if that can be said about listening to this particular CD), than either A or X (treated). I chose to listen to a couple of specific segments of (amplified) acoustical guitar and vocals that I was already very familiar with. These segments were between 30 seconds and a little over a minute long. This made it fairly easy to cycle through several times quickly."

"I chose the untreated disc, since it sounded the best in my system --smoother and more natural sounding..."

"no obvious differences for me"

"After dozens of trials, I actually preferred the non-treated"

"The late Bob Crump didn't like cryogenics and had a comparison listening party with same disc cryoed and non cryo. He felt the cryo process destroyed important stage information. Same deal with his cabling. So I would encourage listeners to take note of any differences with respect to this aspect."
___________________________________________________

In reading through I few threads on this, I feel like most of the listeners felt the way Costin and I did. The freezing gave a cleaner feel, but at the same time loosing the warmth and realness. I also can see that some of the listeners liked the cleaner sound. And there were of course some who did not hear any differences.

I think that if someone is going to make absolute statements like "a couple guys" they should do a little research first.

As I've said in the past it doesn't matter to me one way or another, but what does matter is people painting pictures of others that aren't true. Making it sound like everyone is doing it and loves it, isn't the most truthful of statements.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

Is that really what I stated? I will leave it up to others to decide and leave it at that.

On further reflection, what are you trying to accomplish? You will not allow contrarian results to be posted without kicking into debunk mode. Both Michael and Costin stated what they heard and their results seemed to concur and yet you insist they are wrong. I am sure you will come up with some cute little term for it like mind meld expectation bias or flat out say they don't have a clue.

There are many reasons why someone might get negative results for anything. Don't you know that? Is talking about the philosophy of testing not allowed here? I thought that's what we were doing until you made into some sort of test manipulation thing. Geez! Can we please try to keep the Scientific Method in mind?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Well, Michael, let's be frank for just a second. I didn't say everyone thought cryo was better. If you'll remember I stated at least twice that I knew folks way up the food chain who preferred the non cryo'd disc. I knew Bob Crump, for example. You do realize your results and Costin's are only evidence and not proof of anything, right? My point is that the preponderance of the evidence is that cryo (and freezing) works and works very well; I notice you only posted negative results. What happened to all the positive ones? There surely must be some on the Internet somewhere. Anyway, as I keep repeating, negative results should probably be taken with a grain of salt due to the fact they're often the result of not following directions (like waiting until the thermal shock wears off), jumping to conclusions, not performing the experiment correctly, etc. I might agree the score for cryo vs non-cryo is 50,000 to 10, if you like.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff’s disc is in Dan’s possession currently.
He is in the process of completing the subjective comparison testing on the CD player.

I will post my results after Dan, so as not to provide him any bias should he drop by & happen to read my results before he has completed his testing.

Geoff,
We will be finished with your disc by Thursday.
From Friday morning thru Sunday afternoon, we will be in Silver Spring for the Capital Audiofest.
If you swing by, we could return your disc to you, mano-a-mano, as it where.
My offer still stands for covering the first two rounds at the bar.

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

Scientific Method as outlined in wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

"The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2]

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is intended to be as objective as possible in order to minimize bias. Another basic expectation is the documentation, archiving and sharing of all data collected or produced and of the methodologies used so they may be available for careful scrutiny and attempts by other scientists to reproduce and verify them. This practice, known as full disclosure, also means that statistical measures of their reliability may be made.
"

-------------------------------------------------------

We could spend days discussing this and I doubt anyone wishes to.

Is stating expectation bias really discussing the philosophy of testing and challenging on the evidence or is it more of a dismissal tactic.
I think it is a dismissal tactic in the absence of any discussion on the merits of someones finding (in this case Micheals and Costins listening results and Costins limited empirical evidence.)

Geoff, your first impulse when the test results were posted on Michaels thread was to declare expectation bias.

I may be overzealous on this and I apologize to everyone for continuing this, but I think it is important to keep these types of statements out of this discussion for now.

Hi Geoff

I wasn't looking for the positive or negative, but for ones that were similar to what Costin and I found so you could see it was more than a couple of guys. Most people from what I saw (I didn't look very hard) thought the same as what we said. One side was cleaner (lower noise floor), and the other side was more musically involved (less fatigue). All people are trying to do here Geoff is give their impressions, not attack you or something you like. So I don't see the need for you to be on the attack.

Out of the posts I read I saw more that preffered the un-treated saying it was more complete sounding, but as you have said you did a lot more than freezing so your might be a lot better than the freeze only. For myself though watching this thread and mine, I personally wouldn't feel comfortable unless I heard the fully treated one. BTW the thread was on Audio Circle if any want to look at it. It didn't look to me like that many people were freezing their CD's.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

michael green wrote:

Hi Geoff

I wasn't looking for the positive or negative, but for ones that were similar to what Costin and I found so you could see it was more than a couple of guys. Most people from what I saw (I didn't look very hard) thought the same as what we said. One side was cleaner (lower noise floor), and the other side was more musically involved (less fatigue). All people are trying to do here Geoff is give their impressions, not attack you or something you like. So I don't see the need for you to be on the attack.

Out of the posts I read I saw more that preffered the un-treated saying it was more complete sounding, but as you have said you did a lot more than freezing so your might be a lot better than the freeze only. For myself though watching this thread and mine, I personally wouldn't feel comfortable unless I heard the fully treated one. BTW the thread was on Audio Circle if any want to look at it. It didn't look to me like that many people were freezing their CD's.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Audio Circle is filled to the brim with Naysayers, IIRC. No surprises there. Yes, I realize it's not nice to generalize. :-)

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica