Toledo wrote,

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

Really? I thought that's what you Naysayers did to try and dismiss controversial tweaks. Maybe you misunderstood me, who the hell knows.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

"Really? I thought that's what you Naysayers did to try and dismiss controversial tweaks. Maybe you misunderstood me, who the hell knows"

So now I'm a naysayer. Keep it coming, this is getting entertaining.

Are you saying your comments, at times, are pay backs in some manner?

Who the hell knows is right ... Its exhausting keeping up with your posts, isn't it Geoff? I think many of us agree.

Not for the sake of just making things loud, but there are some audio advantages. Some say, just turn up the volume instead. Sorry, not the same. Early on, I used to take songs from poorly mastered CDs (waveforms looked like a dead EKG (or ECG) and change their loudness with digital software. Others like my "snippets" and so did I enjoy the louder sound, it reminded me more of vinyl sound, to keep it simple. Don't believe anyone has done any extensive research on vinyl sound vs CD sound and why vinyl records gained some popularity - again! Compression? Okay, MAN creates mixes and creates the audio "peaks", sometimes one or two that LIMITS the ENTIRE recording amplitude! So, should we gauge a recording from what one person mixed or allow many different to express their beliefs in mixing? Good topic!!

toledo wrote:

"Really? I thought that's what you Naysayers did to try and dismiss controversial tweaks. Maybe you misunderstood me, who the hell knows"

So now I'm a naysayer. Keep it coming, this is getting entertaining.

Are you saying your comments, at times, are pay backs in some manner?

Who the hell knows is right ... Its exhausting keeping up with your posts, isn't it Geoff? I think many of us agree.

I thought you were going to show me where I accused Michael of expectation bias. Oh, never mind.

You're not a Naysayer? Maybe I'm mistaking an overly suspicious nature for exuberant skepticism.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

It made me ill!! I found out when someone sent my a CD-R and pasted a label on one side. I had problems reading the CD and when I peeled the label off, I was left with a blank piece of transparent plastic!! I always though the "readable" content was embedded in the plastic or whatever, not just pasted on! Some CDs or whatever, may have embeded content, such as CD on one side / DVD on the other, but always problems reading them!

.. for what Catch22 wrote. I like a variety of music, even back to the '50s. And when you hear it remixed, it's like hearing it for the first time!! Man has always overdubbed to achieve a denser music sound. Some things, like a nice sounding piano, may be buried in a mix just for the sake of "filler". As I mentioned before, audiophile enjoy nothing altered or enhanced in sound, but many audiophile LPs bored me. I wanted something better. Good sound starts with a good engineer with a plan. Also, whoever mixes the music should consult the engineer for the sound he had it mind. For me, if I see one peak limiting overall volume, I say trim it so I can "hear" what is going on below the peak!!

I remember names of people and/or services that do "remastering" for audio CD. Seldom do they reply or you do not see them during CD Reviews maybe Amazon. But one from the UK was and I applauded him for those who criticized his hard audio (Buddy Holly) work. One other I applauded in e-mail who was involved in a Roberta Flack CD, a few of her songs never sounded as good!! I think he feared telling me digital processing was used and told me everything was analog processed :)

geoffkait wrote:

I thought you were going to show me where I accused Michael of expectation bias. Oh, never mind.

You're not a Naysayer? Maybe I'm mistaking an overly suspicious nature for exuberant skepticism.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Not that it really matters, but If you need a reminder it was on the Freeze those babies thread after test results were posted that you apparently don't agree with.

You'll have to pardon me though, it was reverse expectation bias ... cute.

Quote:
"Well, there's a big surprise I swear I did not see that coming. The reverse expectation bias bug must be going around."

[quote=Audio_File].. for what Catch22 wrote. I like a variety of music, even back to the '50s. And when you hear it remixed, it's like hearing it for the first time!! Man has always overdubbed to achieve a denser music sound. Some things, like a nice sounding piano, may be buried in a mix just for the sake of "filler". As I mentioned before, audiophile enjoy nothing altered or enhanced in sound, but many audiophile LPs bored me. I wanted something better. Good sound starts with a good engineer with a plan. Also, whoever mixes the music should consult the engineer for the sound he had it mind. For me, if I see one peak limiting overall volume, I say trim it so I can "hear" what is going on below the peak!! [Quote]

I think to say one process is better than the other in every circumstance is just plain being narrow mined. I've been listening to digital since it's inception and analog since the late 60's and have concluded without a doubt that one is not superior to the other in every way.

toledo wrote:

geoffkait wrote:

I thought you were going to show me where I accused Michael of expectation bias. Oh, never mind.

You're not a Naysayer? Maybe I'm mistaking an overly suspicious nature for exuberant skepticism.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Not that it really matters, but If you need a reminder it was on the Freeze those babies thread after test results were posted that you apparently don't agree with.

You'll have to pardon me though, it was reverse expectation bias ... cute.

Quote:
"Well, there's a big surprise I swear I did not see that coming. The reverse expectation bias bug must be going around."

Score one for the Cheerleading Section.

OK, let's vote on it. How many think Costin's Micro Fissures theory should be back on the table?

Pop Quiz: if there were micro fissures in the metal layer wouldn't that kind of interfere with the laser reading of the data, since the physical data is nanoscale, on the order of 10-9? I.e., the player would just shut down completely.

Next up, cryo creates rips in the fabric of spacetime.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff, a CD player uses a sophisticated error correction algorithm that reconstructs missing data. There is a test CD made by Pierre Verany that allows you to find out how your CD "reader" reacts when confronted to gaps in the data, and guess what? some players cope with gaps as large as 2mm!!!
So no, micro-fissures won't make a decent CD player "shut down", they will just replace real data with interpolated data determined by sophisticated algorithms... but still, not the real data. Meaning exactly what Michael and I experienced: a "cleaner" sound but without the details that make music hold together.

iosiP wrote:

Geoff, a CD player uses a sophisticated error correction algorithm that reconstructs missing data. There is a test CD made by Pierre Verany that allows you to find out how your CD "reader" reacts when confronted to gaps in the data, and guess what? some players cope with gaps as large as 2mm!!!
So no, micro-fissures won't make a decent CD player "shut down", they will just replace real data with interpolated data determined by sophisticated algorithms... but still, not the real data. Meaning exactly what Michael and I experienced: a "cleaner" sound but without the details that make music hold together.

Obviously you haven't been keeping up with cryogenics. Cryogenics cannot produce fissures, micro or any other size in metal. This is why cryogenics improves gun barrels, race car engine parts like pistons, piston rods, piston rings, trumpets and French horns, and things of that nature. The reason is because, as it have said at least twice, the cryogenic treatment IMPROVES the performance of the material. In the case of metal, even the nanoscale sputtered metal layer found on the CD, cryogenics makes the metal harder, more durable, LESS BRITTLE, more homogeneous, not LESS HOMOGENEOUS. I know what your thinking. You saw a demo on TV of what happens to materials like glass or plastic at cryo temperature hit with a hammer and the material shattered. LOL. Even such delicate items like electron tubes with their teeny tiny filaments and semiconductor chips and printed circuit boards come through cryo unscathed. No rips, no runs, no micro fissures. Micro fissures in the glass or anywhere in the base would be rather unfortunate for the vacuum inside the electron tube, no?

I'll tell you what, you trot your cryo'd CD down to the local metallurgist and have him take a scanning microscope image of the metal layer. If the image shows micro fissures, I promise I'll eat a bug right here on Stereophile Forum. Scout's honor.

Regardless of how sophisticated you might be under the impression error corrections are, they are very far from infallible, mute testimony of which is easily provided by any number of CD cleaners, polishers, optical enhancers, mold release compound removers, not to mention the GREEN PEN and other scattered background laser light absorbers such as my own Dark Matter that reduce the very obvious sonic effects of spurious scattered light getting into the rather dumb photodetector.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

"Score one for the cheerleading section"

I didn't realize we were keeping score. I guess this fits in with the "me versus them" stance you seem to be taking.

My turn for the really, huh and what the .. And a good measure of puhleez.

Are you trying to deny that you were attempting to dismiss the test results based on bias and a predetermined and expected outcome.

geoffkait wrote:

I'll tell you what, you trot your cryo'd CD down to the local metallurgist and have him take a scanning microscope image of the metal layer. If the image shows micro fissures, I promise I'll eat a bug right here on Stereophile Forum. Scout's honor

Both on the frozen CD and on the PWB "flashy foils" that I just received last week. And no, I won't have to go to the "local metallurgist" since I have access to the full facilities of the ICN (The Institute for Nuclear Research), including optical and electron microscopes. And BTW, I could have done this already but I'm trying to devise a protocol that won't let you cry out loud about fraud... and sorry, I just cannot walk around the facility with my video camera on to "document" everything.
Honestly I'm quite curious if I'll find any message written on that funny foil.

iosiP wrote:

geoffkait wrote:

I'll tell you what, you trot your cryo'd CD down to the local metallurgist and have him take a scanning microscope image of the metal layer. If the image shows micro fissures, I promise I'll eat a bug right here on Stereophile Forum. Scout's honor

Both on the frozen CD and on the PWB "flashy foils" that I just received last week. And no, I won't have to go to the "local metallurgist" since I have access to the full facilities of the ICN (The Institute for Nuclear Research), including optical and electron microscopes. And BTW, I could have done this already but I'm trying to devise a protocol that won't let you cry out loud about fraud... and sorry, I just cannot walk around the facility with my video camera on to "document" everything.
Honestly I'm quite curious if I'll find any message written on that funny foil.

I will be on pins and needles awaiting your results. Question: if your results are negative what can we expect in the way of Plan B for why cryo doesn't work? Share, share!

Did you receive the beginner's foil or the advanced foil? See photo attached.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

"Score one for the cheerleading section"

I didn't realize we were keeping score. I guess this fits in with the "me versus them" stance you seem to be taking.

My turn for the really, huh and what the .. And a good measure of puhleez.

Are you trying to deny that you were attempting to dismiss the test results based on bias and a predetermined and expected outcome.

nay·say·er noun \ˈnā-ˌsā-ər, -ˌser\
: a person who says something will not work or is not possible : a person who denies, refuses, or opposes something

Let's recap. You are supporting a naysayer, Michael (and Costin) who is a naysayer because he claims cryogenics and freezing hurts the sound. He has even tested his theory and provided test results. That is the definition of a naysayer, although in all honesty and fairness Michael and Costin go further than most Naysayers by actually performing tests. You are also a Naysayer because of your support of Michael and Costin, but not for any experience of your own one way or the other, I think it only fair to point out. I, on the other hand, am a Believer, I.e., one who thinks that cryogenics and freezing are good for the sound. Thus, when I use the tried and true Naysayer tactic of using cognitive bias to question the test results you say I'm out of line. Do you see the irony here? Cognitive bias applies to ANY test, whether the results are positive OR negative. It's OK for a Believer to use Placebo Effect or Expectation Bias or Placebo Effect to possibly explain test results. Notice I am careful not to say cognitive bias ALWAYS explains the results. Any test is a data point and is evidence of something, but I would say it is not proof of anything. The reason why a single test is not proof is because there are so many things that can go wrong during experiments, Cold Fusion being an excellent example. The best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

You are providing the classic, dictionary term of naysayer.

The more commonly understood cultural/urban definition of naysayer is a somewhat derogatory term that is frequently used to discredit the qualifications and thereby dismiss the opinion of others.

Are you a Believer or a scientist? I know what you are saying, but lets keep the scientist in the discussion for now.

Lets concentrate on the actual argument I have laid out in various posts which is your dismissal of test results without first discussing and challenging on the merits and exhausting all possibilities. You are a proponent of the Scientific Method, aren't you.

I also stated that I think it is important to keep bias and other similar statements out of the discussion FOR NOW. Plenty of time for that later.

I do not question the use of bias and placebo effect arguments as potential explanations in certain scenarios, but I consider these to be arguments of last resort and not first lines of attack.

Do you honestly believe that bias accurately describes what Micheal and Costin heard or are you perhaps the victim of your own bias due to the "me versus them" confrontational environment that has built up over the last few months here on this forum.
I hope we can start to put aside this confrontational stance both sides exhibit at times and start moving forward with more constructive dialog.

edit - I noticed your comment on Michaels Freeze those babies thread .. that is a great start.

I'm pretty sure I've already answered all of your questions. I don't know what else I can say. As I have mentioned on at least a few occasions there are many reasons why audiophiles sometimes get negative results. As I just pointed out on the Freezing thread Costin's and Michael's results are data points. But they are not proof of anything, positive or negative, any more than anyone else's test. You do realize that, don't you?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff,

This is why testing has it limits and listening and personal choice is the sole determinant in this case.

It will be good to get this behind us.

Now where did everyone go ... i think we scared them away.

Hi Guys

I have to say for the record, I don't go in to any test to prove it wrong but to prove it right, that is my nature. However I am very tough on my own listening. My job has always been to get the best out of things or find a replacement or better way. If you read any reviews, articles or shows on me that's pretty much a given.

I entered this particular testing round because of Geoff's and May's enthusiasm. It only benefits me when finding something true by others as it gives me a wider field to tune in. But I'm not going into that field as a cheerleader unless it indeed shows me a benefit (something new or gained) over what we do in tuning already. Adding something is always a plus, but puting something in the chain that stalls or is something that has to be worked around is not a good thing for tuning. It's a block when we are trying to find a passage.

I look at "an audio nay" as something or someone who is puting their own interest or benefit above the sound, industry or hobby. I look at the freezing and treating thing as a choice not an audio nay. Does it fit into a bigger variable picture? Only if the listener chooses to make this "fixed" decission, but this is not mine to make only judge how it fits in to the bigger picture of and for the tune.

For example (always have an example for a statement). If I'm listening to horns, which I am right this second, and they were right on the edge of bite, I wouldn't want to feed them something that sent the pitch up. Instead if anything would be bringing the tone down just a hair and open up the air around the horns. If a tweak, any tweak, can't do this, it is something that does me no good for that recording.

What I'm not going to do is sit in my room and blame the recording, or use I tweak that goes in the wrong direction for that recording. Instead what I will do is apply the right tune and enjoy the music.

Painting a picture that I am "an audio nay" would be one big mistake for the industry cause they know me as someone who is always on the side of giving better sound. Why else would I take apart this industry one screw at a time to find out what is going on? It's certainly not for the money LOL.

I appreciate others, and the contributions they make but I also "do" test the industry on every level I can as a listener and don't show bias, unless or until it is needed in my own recommendations on someones particular setup or situation. I do believe my testing of the freezing will benefit those hunting for this particular sound and fix, but where I get off the boat is when it is said to be a cure all for the industry instead of a sound setting and choice. It's not "the choice" but "a" choice.

The only correct choice would be the one that allows us to play anything we wish any time we want.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

toledo wrote:

Geoff,

This is why testing has it limits and listening and personal choice is the sole determinant in this case.

It will be good to get this behind us.

Now where did everyone go ... i think we scared them away.

One can't help wondering if all of this business with the cryoing and the unusual (my word) negative results might possibly lead to a Recall of a great number of audio items, assuming the negative results reported here lead to a world wide investigation and reconsideration of cryogenic treatments for CDs and other things. Even class action law suits are not an impossibility. Purist Audio, Shunyata, and the host of other high end cable companies that cryo their products, Meitner, Tannoy (cryo'd crossover assemblies), Cryo labs that have been cryoing customers' audio related stuff for nigh on twenty years, Jena Labs deep immersion cryo service, electon tube cryo service, all the manufacturers who routinely cryo parts or entire objects, individuals who have cryo'd god knows how much stuff nigh these last twenty years. Even NASA might jump into the fray since they have been cryoing things on board spacecraft like forever. I hate to judge before all the facts are in but I have a feeling this whole cryo thing might just be investigated as the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on gullible unsuspecting audiophiles. How would the cryo labs be able to prove to Judge Judy that the sound is better after cryo? Would Judge Judy have to hear it in a controlled blind test? Even worse, what will happen when The Amazing Randi gets wind of this cryo debacle? No one will be safe.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Is this thread stuck on repeat .... Somebody kick it.

Geoff, quit illogically quoting me to make your spins.

toledo wrote:

Is this thread stuck on repeat .... Somebody kick it.

Geoff, quit illogically quoting me to make your spins.

Whilst waiting for the test results from Bill and Costin I heartily suggest we amuse ourselves with some new topic. You go first.

Cheerio

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Hey Geoff.....
Sorry for the delay.......
But your precious disc in on its way home.
Dan & I will have our test results posted soon.
It has been quite hectic due to the trip to Capital Audiofest & catching up at work after being off.

Old audiophile saying..... "slow work takes time".....

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

Bill & Dan

Anything new?

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

I hate to judge before all the facts are in but I have a hunch Bill's wife found a whole lot of things for him to do.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Actually, she had my daughter & three grandchildren here for a few weeks.

Dan & I finally got together this weekend for the first time since Capital Audiofest.
He was able to compare both the CD’s via his Cambridge Audio CD 840 player & the files ripped to FLAC played through his NAD M51 DAC.
He has promised to post his results shortly.

What follows are my observations of the ‘standard’ & ‘Treated’ disc ripped to FLAC & played through my system utilizing a PC based server optimized for music on my Schiit Gungnir DAC.

THE OBJECTIVE RESULTS:

Both discs were ripped using dBpoweramp then analyzed for verification of accurate copy which was confirmed based on comparison to all other logged downloads in multiple databases.

When analyzed using Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1, the results were identical for each.

Both the entire album & each individual track return the exact same results.
My results for both discs also identically match those posted at the DR Database website.

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/1908

THE SUBJECTIVE RESULTS:

As I had never listened to this material before I spent a week listening with the treated disc familiarizing myself with the characteristics of the recording while waiting for the ‘Standard’ disc to arrive.

Once the Standard disc arrived, I ripped it to my hard-drive using the same technique and it was then loaded into my Foobar library in such a manner that it is not possible to know the origin of the disc each track came from.
I then listened to individual tracks back to back.
My multiple listening sessions were divided & concentrated on both minutiae of idiosyncratic detail & overall presentation.

To my ear there was no discernable difference.

I will make no ‘audiophile-speak’ comments polluted with obtuse descriptions on soundstage, imagining or any other ‘descriptive’ impressions other than to say the all the files never failed to sound flat, compressed, harsh & induce listening fatigue in a short period of time.

THREE POSSIBLE CONCLUSIONS:

The treatments have no measurable or audible effect when the data is read from the disc, converted to FLAC file format, then played back via my DAC.

My system sucks & could never resolve better quality source material (treated or otherwise) from worse.

Bill on the Hill has tin ears & could not tell the difference between a live orchestra & and his late father’s 1950’s pocket transistor radio.

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

Hi Bill

Thanks for taking the time to do this testing. I'm looking forward to Dan's results and the comments of others.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

I know this would be asking a lot, maybe not when someone enjoys testing, but it would be cool to have this also done with a recording that was ranked much higher on the scale, like catch is saying. A recording that all felt was high on the list for dynamic range. Maybe even a recording that Geoff, Bill, Dan, Costin, Toledo and Catch have. A recording that could be talked about from all the different angles, some leaning more toward technical and others for the stage and so on.

Seeing each other listen is something we all could benefit from I feel.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Of course you won't hear any differences between audio files ripped "bit-perfect" (I said this long ago).
If you wanted to hear differences you should have listened to both CDs in your player, because here is where the real-time corrections need to occur and interpolation kicks in.

iosiP wrote:

If you wanted to hear differences you should have listened to both CDs in your player, because here is where the real-time corrections need to occur and interpolation kicks in.

Had you been following this admittedly long thread, you would know that is exactly why we enlisted Dan's help.
I do not have a CD player.
He does.

So we wait a bit longer for his update........

As far as my test methods are concerned.......

Here again, I make no defense against claims of group influence, expectation bias or any other faults associated with not conducting full-fledged double-blind testing that meets someone else's required standard.

If you wish to argue my findings based on this fact, fine.
Have at it.
Frankly I could care less.
You all are more than welcome to conduct your own testing.
My only interest is in this entire matter is with what I hear & how my system sounds to me.

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

Actually, I believe one of the initial questions posed by Geoff was whether his treated disc would improve the measured dynamic range test results.

Geoff Kait wrote:

I have some discs that have been extensively treated, some of which, as fate would have it, are among the most heavily compressed CDs according to dynamic compression data base..... I am willing to loan.... one of these treated CDs to someone *capable of running the analysis program* - someone who will act as an independent evaluator - and obtaining the dynamic range for the treated CD, for each track, plus average and high and low values. The results must be published here on this forum. The objective of course is to see how much, if at all, the treatments affect the measured dynamic range..........

I promise not to change any of the actual physical data on the CD. :-)

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

I initially offered to do the do the testing. From there, we decided to allow Dan to analyze both the audio playback of the Standard vs the Treated disc via CD player, & the ripped FLAC files through his computer based system along with the measured dynamic range comparisons.

There has been ample time for anyone to offer test procedure suggestions.

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

at all.

How much time is being consumed here not enjoying the music on the disks. The argument against the CD is essentially a technical, musical, and aestetic one anyway. All the freezing in the world will not make it an LP.

jgossman wrote:

at all.

How much time is being consumed here not enjoying the music on the disks. The argument against the CD is essentially a technical, musical, and aestetic one anyway. All the freezing in the world will not make it an LP.

Terrific Strawman Argument you wrote: all the freezing in the world will not make it an LP. That's true, and no one said it would. But if you follow my prescription for better sound you just might find the humble much maligned CD sounds even better than analog, more liquid! certainly more dynamic! better balanced! and more entertaining. Vinyl sounds relatively timid and uninteresting by comparison. My prescription will get you headed on the right path and before you know it you'll be well on the road to recovery.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Catch22 wrote:

jgossman wrote:

at all.

How much time is being consumed here not enjoying the music on the disks. The argument against the CD is essentially a technical, musical, and aestetic one anyway. All the freezing in the world will not make it an LP.

It is an argument against excessive dynamic range compression and hopefully, a little information to use in selecting various releases of CDs being considered for purchase. Like albums, some sound a lot better than others and it's useful to know which album to search for so that you can enjoy the music.

If there is any takeaway to be had from this thread, I would hope that it would be, as Bill has pointed out several times, DRC, when not used to reflect the artist's desires in sound, can be a very damaging process and dramatically reduce the enjoyment of the music.

For reasons that completely baffle me, dynamic range isn't an issue to some listeners and should not be a consideration for those listeners. For those who do value the various sonic virtues of wide dynamic range, this thread might be of some value.

On the other hand, two points. The first one is that with some playing around with various parameters the sound of overly compressed CDs can be made much better, more than tolerable, even entertaining. Just as Michael and I reported for the dynamically compressed Modern Times. In the same vein I have always maintained stock CDs -whether they are over compressed or not - need a lot of help, at least to get to the level of SQ *I* am used to. They are just too damn boring! Second, some CDs with huge dynamic range are among the most UNLISTENABLE for reasons unrelated to dynamic range. Cases in point: Brothers in Arms by Dire Straights and Security by Peter Gabriel, Bob Til You Drop by Ry Cooder, all of which will scorch your ears off. I value transparency, smoothness, frequency extension, microdynamics, 3 dimensionality, not to mention that certain je ne sais quoi as much as if not more than dynamic range.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

1. The CD was well recorded (Tsuyoshi Yamamoto on FIM).
2. I used two originals of the CD.
3. I cryoed (twice) one original.
4. I played both in the same system (so no DBT for me either).
Conclusion: the treated CD sounded worse.

iosiP wrote:

1. The CD was well recorded (Tsuyoshi Yamamoto on FIM).
2. I used two originals of the CD.
3. I cryoed (twice) one original.
4. I played both in the same system (so no DBT for me either).
Conclusion: the treated CD sounded worse.

Did not mean to jump all over you.
Just wanted to quell any potential BS from the fringe.

Where (what thread) is your test described?
I would like to read it.

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

wkhanna wrote:

iosiP wrote:

1. The CD was well recorded (Tsuyoshi Yamamoto on FIM).
2. I used two originals of the CD.
3. I cryoed (twice) one original.
4. I played both in the same system (so no DBT for me either).
Conclusion: the treated CD sounded worse.

Did not mean to jump all over you.
Just wanted to quell any potential BS from the fringe.

Where (what thread) is your test described?
I would like to read it.

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

I suspect if the CDs are ripped "bit perfect" there can never be any difference measured for any parameter. Since by definition they are identical. Or am I missing something? When the CD is played on a player, on the other hand, it is not bit perfect. By any chance does the computer keep track of how long it takes to rip each CD? That info might be interesting...

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Good questions.....

The speed at which the disc is 'ripped' can/does effect the accuracy.

Hopefully Dan can shed some light on the common threshold for speed vs accuracy (bits & binary are his expertise).

When the CD is played on a standard player, the timing of the individual 'packets' of data being read by the laser are handled by clocks existing in the topography of the players circuitry.

For a moment let us assume the 'treatment/s' somehow enhance the accuracy of the timing capabilities of the player.

When the same treated disc is ripped, any advantages gain by better timing are lost.
When the file is played from the computer, it is re-clocked, re-clocked again by the USB/SPDIF converter & yet again by the DAC.

This is one reason a disc that is ripped can sound better when played by a computer-based system.
The computer-based system can have less jitter than CD player.

Again, I delve into unfamiliar territory that is Dan's expertise.

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

wkhanna wrote:

Good questions.....

The speed at which the disc is 'ripped' can/does effect the accuracy.

Hopefully Dan can shed some light on the common threshold for speed vs accuracy (bits & binary are his expertise).

When the CD is played on a standard player, the timing of the individual 'packets' of data being read by the laser are handled by clocks existing in the topography of the players circuitry.

For a moment let us assume the 'treatment/s' somehow enhance the accuracy of the timing capabilities of the player.

When the same treated disc is ripped, any advantages gain by better timing are lost.
When the file is played from the computer, it is re-clocked, re-clocked again by the USB/SPDIF converter & yet again by the DAC.

This is one reason a disc that is ripped can sound better when played by a computer-based system.
The computer-based system can have less jitter than CD player.

Again, I delve into unfamiliar territory that is Dan's expertise.

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

Sounds a lot like the old dunking chair. If the woman drowns she's not a witch. Only witches can survive the dunking chair.

Speaking of Dan, where in Tarnation is he? The problem is that scattered laser light manages to get into the photodetector, and is interpreted as real signal. The photodetector isn't very smart and will allow in any photons that are more than 70% of the power of the real reflected signal. That's why when you reduce the scattered laser light inside the CD transport compartment the sound improves (ideally lol). It's all happening during the optical reading operation. What I meant by the question how much time did it take to rip the CDs is that I would expect a treated disc to take less time, you know, if ripped bit perfect, since the laser reading process would be more, uh, perfect, the first time. So that even the times to finish ripping could be evidence of something.

Addendum: here is the link to my paper on this whole scattered background laser light issue.

http://machinadynamica.com/machina23.htm

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

I described the test in the thread "freeze those babies".
And yes, a cryoed CD takes longer to rip bit-perfect, meaning that it becomes less legible, but once ripped bit-perfect it will sound the same way as the non frozen CD ripped bit-perfect.

"A treatment by any other name would let the CD rip just the same" (from iosiP and iMac, by Steve Jobs).

geoffkait wrote:

Speaking of Dan, where in Tarnation is he?

Just traded some emails this morning with him.

He was asking me where the thread was located so he could post his findings.

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

wkhanna wrote:

geoffkait wrote:

Speaking of Dan, where in Tarnation is he?

Just traded some emails this morning with him.

He was asking me where the thread was located so he could post his findings.

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

Dan's wife must have found a million things for him to do. Did he get lost?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

....He has no wife.

I will pester him to get his review posted.

Will that be effective ..??

All I can do is try.

I do know he is quite excited over our recent results with using cork & Mu Metal.
I had forward the web sites I used to order the first round of material we are using.
He has already used up all of his & has plans for every other component in his system including his PS Audio P10 power re-generator.

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

Unfortunately, or fortunately, not the wife, but life in general that has kept me from posting. That and as Bill said, I forgot which post it was and didn't have the time to go through all of them looking for which one it was. :)

I'm back, I don't have everything right at my fingertips as the moment, at work right now, but I'll give my overall impressions and list out what all we did.

Before starting, I would like to say that I went in with an open mind on this, I started with the mind set of this will be neat to hear something that one can say, “yes these changes/modifications actually make things sound better! This is really cool! Crap, now I have a bunch of CDs I need to do!” But also, the technical and logical side of me kept me grounded and put that “Let’s wait and see for ourselves what we get out of this.”

First should be noted, Bill did his own test and I did my own, so we did not do any testing together. Which may or may not have done anything to sway our opinions one way or the other.

For me, Bill handed me the discs on a Friday (I think it was) and I spent a good week with the discs trying everything I could think of to get the best objective and subjective results.

Upon Bill giving me the discs the first thing I did was physical inspection. The "modified" disc had various pieces of tape, some red, green, and black (if I remember correctly) markings around the inner ring of the disc. Looks to be covering up the barcodes for disk lot and what not. Other than that, there might have been some other things done (cryo and what not) that I was unable to detect by looking at it. The other "regular" disc appeared to be a completely normal disk with nothing changed on it.

Next, I brought my Cambridge Audio CDp 840c back into my system as it has a dedicated roll in a second system I have upstairs. Once back in place. Anyone that's had a Cambridge Audio CDp probably knows that upon disc seek and insertion, it's not the quietest of players. You hear the servo spin the disc faster and the laser moves quickly into place to read. The one thing I noticed is the modified disc did not make as much noise as the original disc during these parts, checked a couple times and the modified one was definitely quieter. During playback I could not hear either one with the music muted and listening for any sound of the discs.

I played the first disc, "regular," listening to the first, third and last tracks (figuring I would take a sample from different parts of the disc this way). After that I listened to the other disc "modified" this time, listening to the same three tracks. This allowed me to familiarize with the music. After that as quickly as possible I would listen to the same track one after the other. Once through, then I listened to snippets of each track no more than 15 to 10 seconds long. Of course there is a little bit of time in between to swap out the discs. Through doing this I was unable to detect any differences between the two discs.

Next, I took and ripped the disc via my desktop PC that uses a firmware modified Asus drive, I can’t remember which. The firmware is modified to give more accurate reads and much better burns (really designed for better burns).
I ripped both discs as .iso (Nero 8), .wav (dbPowerAmp), and .flac (dbPowerAmp). I ripped both at full speed and at 1x (benefit of hacked firmware). The only note I can make here is that the “modified” disc, when read at high speeds, did not make as much noise as the regular disc. My thinking on this is the disk is much better balanced, making up for discrepancies within the manufacturing of the metal layer and composite layers or the modifications created a smoother (less turbulent) surface so the disk did not flutter as much. I wish I would’ve taken the top of the drive off to watch the discs spin, but I didn’t have the time to really get into that.
I did CRC checks on all ripping for every track and the .isos and in every case all CRCs matched between both disks. I also ran the DR range to verify the same thing as Bill, same numbers.
Once ripped, I then loaded the .iso, .wavs, and .flacs into Foobar2000 and used ABX (double blind testing) plugin to compare each. The tracks played went through the same system except the DAC was not the CA 840c, but my NAD M51. During this part of the testing I was unable to tell any difference in each tested sample, which were the same 3 tracks as in the CDAudio listening portion.

The last step I did was to some digital workstation comparison via Adobe Audition; I took the .wav files and .flacs and compared them. I inverted one of the files and applied it to the other which negates all the similar audio and would leave only the differences in the signal. To this there was none on any of the tests I did (again only on the same three tracks). Spectral Frequency Displays also showed identical files when overlapped as I could not find anything different.

So from a digital technical point, the files coming off both discs are identical. I was hoping that something would show that one had a few bits different….but I was unable to find that.
My conclusion is basically this…
There’s no difference that I was able to discern from listening. This could be related to the music not being able to show the differences between the two… I would’ve picked a better piece of music, most likely (and not to taste) but most likely classical as that’s some of the hardest music to reproduce. The Dylan CD we got was very compressed… VERY compressed and that could be a negative against hearing differences. I’m also not a big Dylan fan…so you can call me biased, but it was also good as I didn’t know the songs and went pure for the “is there a difference I can hear” side, instead of being swept up in the music.
Another thing could be my system not able to resolve the differences. That’s definitely a big possibility…maybe I should’ve used headphones to tell the difference where I couldn’t hear them through my main speakers. If I had had more time I would’ve done that, though my headphone system is not anything near the quality of the 2ch (in my personal opinion).
A third thing to throw at, is that maybe I didn’t do things properly and should’ve done a more blind testing (which I didn’t have the man power to do) and then could’ve gotten different results.

The last option (which biased as I am now, I think is correct) is that there really is not much difference to be made one a decent system that compensates for any issues/imperfections/what have you. I mean the correction algorithms are in there for a reason when the laser reads, right? So maybe this does mean something. Now having said that, I’m a fan of Japan’s Super High Metal (SHM) cds, everyone I’ve gotten has sounded better than the original and from what I’m able to tell… a few are from the exact same master. Now could it have been tampered with… of course, that is the first thing that goes through my mind….but for me any anyone I’ve demoed them… there’s a difference. So I’m for anything and trying anything that can and does make a difference, but for me… the modified CD was the same as the original.

This is LEGIT. There is a noticeable difference to the sound quality (I added the Mu Metal to my NAD M51 (though ran out, still need more) and it's a noticeable difference. I did both the cork and mu metal in my Cambridge Audio 840c and was blown away by the differences (done after the CD comparison) With the isolation done, music is just more enjoyable, instruments sound more realistic and you HEAR the room they were recorded in. Enough to give me goosebumps. I didn't do the cork as I need longer screws, so I have to get those, but I did pad the transformer board with a paper/rubber o rings (flat) that I used when building PCs. Don't know if that does anything or not, but I figured why not.

So as Bill said, yes, I'm buying enough cork and Mu Metal to do all three of my amps, pre-amp (maybe, I think the transformer is enclosed already, but not positive), the PS Audio P10 (maybe, still under warranty), and my Yamaha RX-A820 upstairs. I can't wait to see what it does with the huge power transformers in the Rotel RB-1090... I always thought that huge thing has to be giving off some great radiation to the surrounding components.

I like the cork and Mu Metal also because it satisfies my logical/scientific side of my brain. ;)

Sorry you didn't hear any difference. Just for grins I gave my treated Dylan CD to someone I know, who is not an audiophile and who has a very modest $200 Sony all in one system. He also has the standard untreated CD. He told me he thought the treated CD was better - more open, much less boomy, with better separation of instruments.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Dan,

Thanks for doing this and putting the time and effort in.

Keep us up to date on how you worked with the cork and MM, will ya.

Are you going the route that Bill is with new chassis and adding other materials to the mix?