But it was WC Fields who said,

"Never give a sucker an even break."

Geoff Kait
Maraschino Diabolical

Hi Guys

Here's a thread I've started that gives some insite from the view of audiophiles looking on at this topic. I've put most of the writing in the first person to make it easy, but you should note and read this as many of your fellow listeners reading these threads and their ideas about them.

http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t343-stereophile-the-other-side-of-the-hobby

check back for continuing updates on the thread above

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

Just thought I'd pipe up and point out that when Television went digital all the ambient information and deep transparent SOUNDSTAGE you'd get on things like ballgames, the Olympics and concerts, among other things, with an analog signa, that certain je ne C'est quoi ORGANIC SOUND, went completely out the window when I switched to the less expensive digital feed. What a bonehead move that turned out to be. Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall, all the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again.

Seasonal felicitudes,

Geoff Kait
Machugana Dramatica

My solid state Dynaco PAT-5 had a switch for equipment plugged into it, but the preamp circuitry was always powered. Except for a slightly microphonic tone-control circuit (usually bypassed), it worked well for over 25 years. I've dusted it off and am slowly powering up with a Variac. I'll report its status soon, I hope.

Digital TV audio was a step backwards. It's often not in sync with its video, has wild volume fluctuations, and too often, poor voice intelligibility, with my local provider. I kept my TV antenna from decades ago, dropped cable, and use the antenna again.

michael green wrote:

Hi Guys

Here's a thread I've started that gives some insite from the view of audiophiles looking on at this topic. I've put most of the writing in the first person to make it easy, but you should note and read this as many of your fellow listeners reading these threads and their ideas about them.

http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t343-stereophile-the-other-side-of-the-hobby

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

Maybe you could post some random quotes here as I'm too lazy to sign into your web site. As long as your customers' comments aren't too snarky, of course. One imagines your audiophiles must be the shy type, too shy to come over here in person and post. ;-)

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

Bierfeldt said :-

>>> “and a body of evidence does suggest something is going on.” <<<

This area (i.e ‘body of evidence does suggest something is going on’) has, in my opinion, not been investigated enough or not taken seriously enough. There have been endless reports (descriptions of improvements, anecdotal evidence, reported observations etc) for over 30 years of ‘changes in the sound which do not fit with conventional electronic or audio theories’. I am not referring to numerous “johnny come latelys” reporting such changes but changes reported by seasoned and well respected listeners in the world of audio. Nor are they reporting ‘tinkering at the fringes of improvement’ as suggested might be the case by bierfeldt :-

>>> “However, if it is not obvious and requires subtle listening to identify deviations in sound quality, those modifications are tinkering at the fringes of improvement and when one has limited resources, aren't going to deliver big ROIs.” <<<

When reading such as Michael Fremer’s reports on his experiences in 2006 when using a demagnetiser on LPs and such as Greg Weaver’s reports on his experiences when using the Ultrabit Platinum Plus Liquid on CDs, one could hardly refer to their experiences as “having required subtle listening” on their part or as those ‘tweaks’ “tinkering at the fringes of improvement”. Their experiences were full blown and dramatic.

And, to go further, their experiences were only confirming other’s similar experiences.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Hi, Dave I hate to judge before all the facts are in but if you're right there is a whole bunch of people that have a lot of explaining to do. Because there are many audiophiles and reviewers and just plain folks who have reported hearing results using any of the what 20 different CD treatments including the current darling of the audio underground, Essence of Music. Are they all deaf. Do they own stock in the manufacturers. How do you explain away the evidence that something's going on.

Oops! I've got to run, back at ya in about a hour .....

OK, I'm back.

So, anyway, what we have here is the old argument that the data cannot be altered. I ll you one further and that is that the CD error detection and correction scheme! - ye olde Reed Solomon codes, would presumably correct any errors in reading the data should any errors occur. And on top of that I'll give you the servo feedback system employed to (hopefully) keep the laser beam from getting off track. Yet in spite of these arguments, many many folks report good results with CD treatments! which by the way include PWB Cream Electet and Silver Rinbow Foil, both of which were added to Stereophile's Recommended Components List a couple of years ago, which I should add is kind of ironic in itself given the fact that both of particular products have been around longer than dirt, most likely around 30 years. But we also have Nanotech 8500, Auric Illuminator, Oprtrix, Liquid Resolution, skipping ahead to Jena Labs CD treatment, he's the dude from NASA, like me, and I've got the Super Intelligent Chip and Dark Matter CD treatments. Besides the 20 or so fluids there is the Nespa (from the French N'est pas? Is it not so?) strobe light CD device, my own CD Re-animator multicolor stroboscopic CD treatment, the CD Improver for fixing the out of round condition of most CDs and for beveling the outer edge for better reading of the data, applying black electrical tape to the CD (see my Random Free Tips thread), coloring the CD with various colored pens - like my free Green pen I am currently offering, (With free shipping)

So, with all of those things in mind, it would probably be a better strategy for the long haul to adapt a well, maybe the reading of the data is not perfect and maybe the scattered laser light really is an issue. Maybe I should investigate what's going on. What's been going on for what thirty years?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

David Harper wrote:

Yes, but if any of the things you mention were taking place, such as scattering of the laser light, I suspect what we would hear would be a catastrophic distortion of the sound to a degree that would render the sound not music at all, but rather some electrical static noise.
My idea is, if what we hear sounds (pretty much) like relatively undistorted music, then the CD is being scanned correctly.
In other words, there are no "shades of grey"
I understand your argument, that if many listeners report hearing a difference, then there must be something going on. I agree.
I just don't see what that difference can be.

Let's look at the reading of the data by the CD laser for a moment. The process is actually not digtial but analog and the effectiveness of the laser reading process can be expressed as Optical Signal to Noise Ratio. The eventual analog SNR is a function of the Optic SNR. A small improvement in Optical SNR results in large improvements to analog SNR downstream. Jitter is produced by a lot of things including vibration, scattered laser light getting into the photodetector, the laser beam getting off track, and other things. Generally speaking, as I've been preaching lo these past couple years, the improvements to the sound we hear are a result of discovery of (inherent) problems in the system or perhaps in the room or house AC, whatever. The inherent problems in the system I'm referring to are the ones the designers were either unaware of or disinclined to point out. One small step for audiophile, one giant step for audiophile-kind. So, what happens is every time you can improve the optical signal to noise by say 1 dB you get this big improvement downstream. If you can string a bunch of these relatively small SNR improvements suddenly it's a whole new ballgame. So, what I have in mind is doubling your performance. Performance that you would be able to measure in your room and hear, one assumes. In any case Rome wasn't built in a day. Noone said it was going to be easy. Let's take all the things that produce jitter and get rid of them, one by one.

The difficult we do rather quickly. The impossible takes a little longer.

"The urge to discover secrets is deeply ingrained in human nature; even the least curious mind is roused by the promise of sharing knowledge withheld from others. Some are fortunate enough to find a job which consists of the solution of mysteries, but most of us are driven to sublimate this urge by solving artificial puzzles for our entertainment." - John Chadwick, the Decipherment of Linear B

Geoff Kait
Machina Dracula

>>> “I understand your argument that if many listeners report hearing a difference, then there must be something going on. I agree.
I just don't see what that difference can be.” <<<

David. You say you understand and agree that if many listeners (many of them significant people within the world of audio) report hearing an improvement in the sound of discs after certain ‘treatments’- that there “must be something going on”. These people are describing the differences in the sound that they hear.

I suggest you read one of those people. In the January 2011 issue of Positive Feedback Online Greg Weaver wrote a very descriptive report of the improvements he heard after applying the UltraBit Liquid to his discs. If, say, he applied the treatment to his discs on the Tuesday and heard the improvements in the sound he eloquently describes, then surely this means that the previous day (the Monday) he had not been hearing (resolving) all that wealth of information he is now hearing on the Tuesday – from exactly the same discs ? Which, surely, now raises the questions:-

WHY did he not hear that wealth of information on the Monday ????? And,

WHAT on earth is going on to provide the wealth information he can now hear (resolve better) on the Tuesday, after applying a chemical to the discs ??????

Just HOW many more (untreated) discs could be similarly ‘treated’ to allow far more information to be heard (better resolved) ??

These are just some of the very questions I have been saying are “sitting on a shelf for the past ????? years, awaiting answers”. And the reason why I have repeatedly challenged one particular person after he has claimed that “HE has done the questions and got the answers”.

No one has got the definitive answers yet !!!!!!!!!

David. You say:-

>>> “there must be something going on. I agree. I just don't see what that difference can be.” <<<

You and so many others. We are ALL struggling to find definitive answers. If the answers
had already been found, then there would be no ongoing controversy. Our own research is along the path that if (say) on the Tuesday a wealth of information can be better resolved after the application of a chemical to the disc, then it shows that that wealth of information is already on the disc, has been there all the time, and SHOULD have been heard on the Monday !!!!

Which then raises the next question :-

WHAT is the chemical doing to allow the wealth of information to be better resolved on the Tuesday ???

Our approach is that the chemical (and other ‘treatments’) are actually reducing something which was/is adverse (happening on the Monday before the treatment) and after applying the ‘treatment’ allowed the adverse situation to be alleviated somewhat so that on the Tuesday, after the chemical (and other treatments) had been applied, more of the wealth of information (which had been there all the time) could be better resolved.

If you had been following this whole saga over these past 30 plus years you would have picked up certain clues. i.e

Chemicals applied to discs can ‘change the sound’. Colours applied to discs can ‘change the sound’. Applying a demagnetiser to discs can ‘change the sound’.

I also suggest you read the review of Holger Stein’s Music Maestro Lacquer in Positive Feedback Online July/August 2012 issue.

A few drops of this lacquer on the label side of CDs. Giving improvements in the sound !!

How many clues and for how long before people in audio begin to realise just what can affect the ‘sound’ – the very musical enjoyment we all yearn for ?

The answer can no longer be “It can’t happen therefore it does not happen”. It DOES happen !!
So we have to deal with the fact that it does happen and try to gain some better understanding of what might be ‘going on’. Which means working together (with everyone’s experiences) to reach a better understanding.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

And in fairness, my opinion is worth what we all paid for it, but this screams for a lab experiment. I would like to see if a double bling A/B test to see if a statistically significant result could be achieved where a body of people could pick out treated vs untreated CDs or two different cables. I would also like to see a body within that of Audiophiles.

I saw an interesting (less scientific but deliver a result) article evaluating the Pono player vs the iPod. Test subjects were able to easily pick out the difference between the Pono and the iPod. The irony was they preferred the sound of the iPod overwhelmingly including a Pono owner. My guess is the counter intuitive result stems from what we are used to and the fact we develop a preference for what we are used to. In this case, we are used to mediocrity. The same thing happens when you test Coke with HFCS vs Mexican Coke with cane sugar. In an unblinded test consumers overwhelmingly prefer Mexican Coke. In a blinded test, 50% of consumers can't taste a difference and among the 50% who can taste a difference, 90% of them prefer high fructose corn syrup. You get the opposite result if you run the same test in Mexico.

I am not even concerned with preference, I am just curious if in a blinded a/b test, can a consumer pick out a difference with these different cd treatments or for that matter, cables In a statistically significant way.

I agree with May there's a lot of mystery in these things like liquids and chemicals and color. Heck, even the Green Pen shouldn't really work since the CD laser wavelength is 780 nm, which is not RED (the complementary color for GREEN), it's not any color. It's in the near infrared portion of the light spectrum, which is invisible to the human eye and not amenable to absorption by color, any color. My Dark Matter CD treatment, while not a cleaner or anti static fluid, is a little more straightforward given that is absorbs in the invisible portion of the spectrum, where most of the scattered laser light actually IS.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dracula

>>> “Let’s look at the reading of the data by the CD laser for a moment.” <<<

Geoff. So much appears to make sense re ‘affecting the reading of the information on CDs’ UNTIL one discovers that applying such as a chemical or applying a demagnetiser to LPs as well as CDs gives a similar improvement in the sound !!!!

George Louis (the producer of the UltraBit liquid) claims that his liquid “is also effective when used on LPs” !! Even though George has created the descriptive phrase for his liquid of "Optical Impedance Matching" treatment !!! There are no optics associated with LPs !!!

Although Michael Fremer, Stephen Mejias and John Atkinson had previously all reported hearing the beneficial effect of applying a demagnetiser to LPs, at the open discussion debate at the 2009 Montreal Hi Fi Show Robert Deutsch also commented on his experience of applying a demagnetiser to CDs :-

>>> “Every time I have used it I have experienced an improvement in the sound each time” <<<

So many unanswered questions, Geoff !!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

only ones who push "no answers" are the ones "not listening" or "not doing" the hobby

Here's a thread I've started that gives some insite from the view of audiophiles looking on at this topic. I've put most of the writing in the first person to make it easy, but you should note and read this as many of your fellow listeners reading these threads and their ideas about them.

http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t343-stereophile-the-other-side-of-the-h...

check back for continuing updates on the thread above

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

Here's an article by Steve Nugent of Empirical Audio on the dodgy subject of sources of jitter in digital audio systems, i.e., CD players. My reason for posting the link to Steve's article is to illustrate that not only is the whole digital process imperfect it's very imperfect.

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/manufacture/0509/

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

David Harper wrote:

I should admit to the fact that I have not experimented with any CD treatment, so I really have no business disputing them until I do. I suppose anything is possible. It's just that my (limited) understanding of what digital data is seems to rule out the possibility that treating a disc or a wire can improve anything.
I just sent emails to three different record company's asking them why their CD's don't have any dynamic range.
I don't expect to get any answer. I don't even expect that anyone will read my email. But at least I did something.
Reprise, Capitol Records, Columbia.

If you want someone to go rough anybody up at Reprise, Capitol Records or Columbia I know someone who d be happy to oblige.

:-)

Geoff Kait
Machina Dracula

>>> “only ones who push “no answers" are the ones "not listening" or "not doing" the hobby” <<<

You are at it again, Michael, distorting what I say. Will you please STOP doing it !!

I do not say ‘there are NO answers’. I say there are still many questions, sitting on a shelf, awaiting answers and no matter how often you boast that you have “Done the questions and got the answers”, you do NOT have all the answers !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

only ones who push "no answers" are the ones "not listening" or "not doing" the hobby

Here's a thread I've started that gives some insite from the view of audiophiles looking on at this topic. I've put most of the writing in the first person to make it easy, but you should note and read this as many of your fellow listeners reading these threads and their ideas about them.

>>>>>>>>>>>What a strange world we live in. Here we have a bunch of audiophiles on some godforsaken website somewhere making comments about posts on an entirely different audiophile web site, that would be Stereophile Forum. That would make ToonLand the new Hydrogen Audio or Audiocircle of Audio, they also take a lot of glee and pride in making observations of other posters' posts on other websites. That's so high school! If "my fellow audiophiles" on ToonLand don't have the cajones or the wherewithal to come over here and post on Stereophile Forum that would make Michael a big fat troll. Trolling for dollars among the naive and gullible audiophiles, picking out the sick and helpless Wildebeast from the herd. Lol

http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t343-stereophile-the-other-side-of-the-h...

check back for continuing updates on the thread above

>>>>>>>>Yeah, right.

David originally posted,

"Im an empirical guy. I don't believe in audiophile snake oil.I believe in what makes sense to me logically. Im not saying Im right. Im just stating facts."

Do you think I'm NOT an empirical guy, too? Do you think I'm not skeptical, too? Do you think I'm gullible and naive and swallow any old hog swaddle that comes waddling down the pike? Here is a list of audiophile products and devices that most audiophiles would probably have a tough time believing. Until 400 years ago everyone believed the Sun revolved around the Earth.

In no particular order,

1. SteinMusic Harmonizer

2. The Tice Clock

3. The Red X Pen

4. Ultra Tweeters from Golden Sound

5. Mpingo disc

6. Franck Tchang tiny bowl Acoustic Resonators

7. The Green Pen

8. Walker Talisman and similar CD and LP demagnetizer

9. Marigo VTS Dots

10. Intelligent Chip

11. WA Quantum Chip

12. Nespa stroboscopic light device

13. Purple pen for CDs and LPs

14. Quantum Temple Bell

15. Flying Saucers for Windows

16. Lessloss Blackbody (the thing with all the mirrors inside)

17. Clever Little Clock

18. Brilliant Pebbles

19. Black cable tie around drain spout

20. Audio Magic liquid filled Super Fuse.

21. Wire directionality (fuse directionality)

22. Schumann frequency generator

23. Dark Matter

24. The Teleportation Tweak

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

>>> “And in fairness, my opinion is worth what we all paid for it, but this screams for a lab experiment. I would like to see if a double bling A/B test to see if a statistically significant result could be achieved where a body of people could pick out treated vs untreated CDs or two different cables.” <<<

Bierfeldt. I am not challenging your’s or anyone else’s desire for blind test proof. Everyone would love to have Blind test proof for all things unusual !!!!! But would such a proof be really SO important or necessary if you, yourself, had had a similar experience of improving the sound of your LPs as Michael Fremer had after applying a demagnetiser to his LPs ? And, I might add, which Stephen Mejias and John Atkinson also confirmed happened.

To quote Michael Fremer’s reply to someone during a Stereophile chat forum debate triggered by Michael F’s published experiences :-

>>> “But more importantly, why don't you trust your ears???????

I trusted mine when I heard what the Furutech did, despite my utter cynicism about it (which is why it sat on the floor for 3 months before I tried it).

What I heard was so obvious, so repeatable, so clear, it was like "is that the Empire State Building?" Not "I'd better do an A/B/X to prove it really is the Empire State Building" (I know that analogy is not valid). The point is, not one skeptic---and I'm talking recording engineers, mastering engineers whose names you know, and the editor of the magazine have all heard the difference....the only reason. The only reason you wrote what's above is because you haven't experienced it. Because had you, even if you don't trust your own ears (or your own eyes I guess), this is an easily heard, easily repeatable phenomenon. It's a HUGH difference.” <<<

Not every ‘tweak’ costs a fortune !! But what so many of them DO show is that ‘there is something going on’. And even if there were some DBT proof that many of the ‘tweaks’ were/are effective, there will still be the problem remaining of finding the answer to the question “What on earth is going on ?”

And. Just how many years do people want reports to extend over until they are prepared to take seriously that “there is something going on which requires some serious thought put into it” ?

In the same Stereophile discussion thread in which Michael Fremer made the comment I copied above, Clark Johnsen commented :-

>>> “You might say I'm jumping late into this thread. On the other hand you might say I discovered "CD demagnetizing" so I have been a silent early arrival. Back in the late-Eighties the crew and I were all rah-rah over tape demagnetizers from Rat Shack and Benjamin. I even had Joe (Mr. B) over for a demo! There was no question among any of us that the damn things reduced the enharmonic trash that so disfigures CD sound.

Then I started writing about the phenomenon in my column for Positive Feedback, back when it was a print-only publication. Later (c. 1996) Stereophile published a longish letter from me on the topic; I don't find it in the archives here but maybe I'll try to get it online.

But to what end? History is repeating itself here before our very eyes. The very same (specious, if I may say) arguments are being thrown against it by all the usual suspects: Those who will not listen. It has become quite tiresome.” <<<

So. For some 30 years the effect of applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs has been reported !!!!!

Robert Harley’s ground breaking article “The Cryogenic Compact Disc” was published in Stereophile in 1990. In it Robert refers to Ed Meitner’s findings so that means that Ed Meitner must have been working on the cryogenic freezing technique for all things appertaining to audio for a few years leading up to 1990 – so, THAT freezing technique has been known about and used and reported on for some 30 years also !!!!

In the British Hi Fi magazine Hi Fi News, in 1988, Christopher Breunig (the then musical editor of Hi Fi News) described the effect (on the sound) after removing the coloured inks from the label side of a CD - after Peter and I had told him of our own findings (during the previous few years) of the effect (on the sound) of the different colours on CDs.

To quote Christopher B.:-

>>> “Ideally you should have a ‘control’ CD with which to make comparisons. The brilliant Eliot Gardiner Mozart Choral records offer excellent proof of this: for instance, a ‘washed’ Mass in C-minor opened up the sound, losing stridency, sharply defining the St John’s acoustic halo behind the singers” <<<

Again, for some 30 years, the effect of colours (on the sound) has been reported !!!

How many more years and how many more people before it is realised that all is not as presumed ?

Michael G has commented elsewhere on the Stereophile forum :-

>>> “On here every other thread is about disappointment or snake oil or threads that are trolled to death. Worse is you and May's practice of turning threads into trolling and spins by” <<<

No Michael. I quote from seasoned, experienced and intelligent listeners giving their experiences, which mirrors our own personal experiences of changes happening with the ‘sound’!!

The people I quote are (and have been for some 30 years) highlighting problems associated with the very source (the recordings/discs) of the music we all wish to enjoy. Unlike Michael G, who has said :-

>>> "I also didn't find the CD's to have a problem" <<<

That statement I find absolutely amazing !!

Whatever changes one can make elsewhere (further along) in the audio system and listening environment (and there ARE many of those), I am of the firm opinion that it is unhelpful (to put it mildly) for anyone to actively encourage people NOT TO attempt to deal with an inherent problem (or problems) to do with the actual source of the musical information !!!!!!!!!!!!

If there is an inherent problem then there is an inherent problem and actively encouraging people to walk past, swerve around or step over an inherent problem is, in my opinion, not helping them – however much they can make further changes in the sound elsewhere in the system. One CAN make different changes/improvements in the sound elsewhere, yes, (no one is challenging that particular aspect) but those later changes will not, in any way, deal with any already inherent problems at the very beginning of the playing system !!

As Geoff says. We are also as sceptical as the next person. Nor are we gullible, naive or swallow any old hog swaddle. But we do know what we, and others, have experienced – soundwise.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

David Harper wrote:

IMO it might not be accurate to compare demagnetizing LP's to treating CD's. It does seem(to me) that there actually might be
a logical reason why demagnetizing could improve the sound of an LP since it's an electro-mechanical transducer tracking a record groove,maybe a magnetically charged LP would alter the function of the phono cartridge?
Whereas the reading of a CD by a laser would seem to be a different thing, not subject those kinds of influences?

I will respond at length to this post by David during the next hour or two, but for the time being let me just say that the CD laser light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. It is in the near infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum just out of the visible light spectrum which is actually a very small part of the entire EM spectrum, which also includes such things as radio communications, X - Rays and even Extremely Low Frequency communications Circa 75 Hz. Thus, being electromagnetic in nature, the laser IS subject to being affected by static electrical charge or Magnetic Field in proximity to the laser whilst it is reading the data on the CD.

More to follow.

It's pretty obvious to everyone, mostly because that's what we learned it a long time ago, that light is made of of photons. That goes for all the colors of light that make up the visible light portion of the spectrum. But it also goes for the invisible light portions of the EM spectrum, both infrared which is quite a big band of the entire EM spectrum but also on the other side of the visible portion, where the wavelengths get shorter - ultraviolet light, X-rays and Gamma Rays. Conversely as visible light shifts into infrared when the wavelengths of EM waves get longer, Radio communications wavelengths/ frequencies are longer than those for visible light. All of these EM signals, the laser light beam, radio communications, microwave, satellite signals, telephone lines, etc. are not only electromagnetic but THEY ARE PHOTONS. Which explains why all of these signals travel at light speed (in a vacuum). Since photons have no mass they are the only thing that travels at the speed of light (in a vacuum). So all electromagnetic signals are photons. Well, guess what? The music signal traveling through cable to the speakers is also an electromagnetic signal. Which means, you guessed it, the music signal is photons. In space no one can hear you scream because Acousitc waves don't travel in a vacuum since there are no molecules of air or anything else to propagate the acoustic waves. But in space radio waves travel very well since they're not acoustic waves and don't require air or anything else to propagate. So, Houston can communicate with astronauts on the Shuttle or the Moon or Mars or Jupiter or wherever because radio EM waves propagate in free space (vacuum) with little attenuation.

But I digress. Getting back to demagnetizing CDs and LPs which we pretty much know works because we can hear it. There really isn't much doubt about that part of it. It's how it works that is the problem. I'm speaking only for myself but it would appear that an LP static electric charge and a CD static electric charge can be explained easily. And the use of ionizers appear to either neutralize the static charge on the LP or CD or place a negative charge on it. But static electric charge and magnetic field are not the same thing physically and are not interchangeable. You cannot for example eliminate a static electric charge with a degausser. Conversely you cannot eliminate a magnetic field with an ionizer. Therefore Houston we have a problem. The problem is that in order to demagnetize something the thing you're attempting to demagnetize must be magnetizable in the first place. Not everything is demagnetizable. Actually only a few things are magnetizable, those things that contain iron, for example. But the metals that CD are made with, the metal layer, are not ferrous. They are aluminum, nickel, gold, sometimes alloys, but not steel or iron. We also know polycarbonate is not ferrous or magnetic. What about the ink on the label. Well, even if there are traces of iron in the ink I doubt it could have ANY impact. As for the LP, I don't think there is sufficient magnetic material in the vinyl or the ink on the label to amount to anything, if in fact there is ANY magnetic material.

Happy New Year

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

David Harper wrote:

I see what you're saying, it would seem that a vinyl LP cannot have a magnetic charge. But doesn't a static charge create a magnetic field? In winter when the air in my house is real dry, as I pull an LP out of it's sleeve, I hear little static pops, and I feel the hairs on my arm thats near the LP magnetically attracted to the disc. Also, I get a real annoying static shock when I touch the tonearm the first time.It's a carbon fiber tonearm. Also, I worked in the printing industry for years, and the static charge in the paper on a high-speed web press can be unbelievably powerful, so much so that it can make running the press impossible. The paper on a sheet-fed press will actually stop moving on the way into the machine because it's glued to the infeed board by a magnetic charge.

Opposite electric charges attract. It's the static electric charge that's holding the paper to the infeed board, not a magnetic charge or magnetic field. Besides paper is not magnetic so it must be the high static electric charge that's involved. Notice I say electric charge for which there is a definite physical phenomenon and I say magnetic field which also has a definite physical meaning, but a different meaning. Even the units of electric charge and magnetic field are very different. Coulomb and Gauss respectively. The reason clothes get all stuck together when you take them out of the drier is due to static electrical charges that build up on the clothes during the spin cycle.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamic

Just concentrating on the magnetism aspect, Geoff, still does not explain the effect created by cryogenic freezing, applying chemicals, applying lacquers, applying colours etc !!!

However, from our work with Electrets I know that plastics can be polarised.

Could a polarisation explanation be considered ? For example. The LP is tracked always in one direction only – by a magnetic creating cartridge. Could a surface polarisation be gradually created (i.e. an adverse situation) – which could then be reduced or alleviated somewhat by the application of a demagnetiser (or rather to term it a de-polariser) ??? Furutech do recommend re-applying the demagnetiser at intervals, particularly if the disc is played often. Could a polarisation also build up on the surface of a plastic/aluminium/plastic layered CD ?

This would be a different situation from actual magnetising such plastic materials and different from any shortage of ions situation.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

David. I fully understand where your logical approach is coming from but one STILL has to explain how seasoned, experienced and intelligent listeners can hear improvements in the sound after the application of a such as a demagnetiser to CDs !!!!!!!!!!

If you are prepared to accept what they are describing hearing after doing that technique on LPs, then surely you cannot then dismiss what they are describing after doing that same technique on CDs. Either they know exactly what they are hearing or they don‘t. Don’t you think that they would have had exactly the same disbelief and scepticism as you and would have been as reluctant as the next person to write about their experiences ? No sensible person readily exposes themselves to be ridiculed !!!!! Certainly not people who wish to be regarded as ‘experts in audio’ !! So, if they DO write about such experiences, then one has to believe that they were describing genuine experiences.

Either they are right with the treatment of LPs but wrong with CDs or they are right with both. I say they are right with both experiences. In which case we have to find an explanation which covers both experiences.

YOU, however, are still stuck with one possible explanation for LPs and none for CDs. How about considering a different concept ? That it might have nothing to do with how the information is tracked/read but how we (human beings) are reacting to both types of discs, being played, in the listening environment.

That our reaction to both can be changed by what we apply to the different discs – whether it is a demagnetiser, or a chemical, or a colour, or a lacquer, or cryogenic freezing, OR……….. ? That our reaction to something about those discs was an adverse reaction before such treatments, but after such treatments our adverse reaction was alleviated somewhat, therefore allowing us to resolve more of the musical information.

Most people’s description of their experiences fits with “a better resolving of the musical information” – so we have to work backwards from that to try to discover what had been adverse in the first place.

This could turn into a very good discussion !!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

May Belt wrote:

Just concentrating on the magnetism aspect, Geoff, still does not explain the effect created by cryogenic freezing, applying chemicals, applying lacquers, applying colours etc !!!

However, from our work with Electrets I know that plastics can be polarised.

Could a polarisation explanation be considered ? For example. The LP is tracked always in one direction only – by a magnetic creating cartridge. Could a surface polarisation be gradually created (i.e. an adverse situation) – which could then be reduced or alleviated somewhat by the application of a demagnetiser (or rather to term it a de-polariser) ??? Furutech do recommend re-applying the demagnetiser at intervals, particularly if the disc is played often. Could a polarisation also build up on the surface of a plastic/aluminium/plastic layered CD ?

This would be a different situation from actual magnetising such plastic materials and different from any shortage of ions situation.

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

Not sure this answers your questions but here it is anyway, these are not my words:

Polarization density

In classical electromagnetism, polarization density (or electric polarization, or simply polarization) is the vector field that expresses the density of permanent or induced electric dipole moments in a dielectric material. When a dielectric is placed in an external electric field, its molecules gain electric dipole moment and the dielectric is said to be polarized. The electric dipole moment induced per unit volume of the dielectric material is called the electric polarization of the dielectric.[1][2]

Polarization density also describes how a material responds to an applied electric field as well as the way the material changes the electric field, and can be used to calculate the forces that result from those interactions. It can be compared to magnetization, which is the measure of the corresponding response of a material to a magnetic field in magnetism. The SI unit of measure is coulombs per square meter, and polarization density is represented by a vector P.[2]

To further elucidate or confuse depending on your point of view here is another paragraph on magnetism courtesy of Wikipedia,

Magnetization
This article is about magnetization as it appears in Maxwell's equations of classical electrodynamics. For a microscopic description of how magnetic materials react to a magnetic field, see magnetism. For mathematical description of fields surrounding magnets and currents, see magnetic field.
In classical electromagnetism, magnetization (magnetisation in British English) or magnetic polarization is the vector field that expresses the density of permanent or induced magnetic dipole moments in a magnetic material. The origin of the magnetic moments responsible for magnetization can be either microscopic electric currents resulting from the motion of electrons in atoms, or the spin of the electrons or the nuclei. Net magnetization results from the response of a material to an external magnetic field, together with any unbalanced magnetic dipole moments that may be inherent in the material itself; for example, in ferromagnets. Magnetization is not always uniform within a body, but rather varies between different points. Magnetization also describes how a material responds to an applied magnetic field as well as the way the material changes the magnetic field, and can be used to calculate the forces that result from those interactions. It can be compared to electric polarization, which is the measure of the corresponding response of a material to an electric field in electrostatics. Physicists and engineers define magnetization as the quantity of magnetic moment per unit volume. It is represented by a vector M."

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

David Harper wrote:

so if there was one tweak or tune that anyone here is confident would make a noticeable difference in the sound of my system, what would it be? Give me an idea and I'll try it. Now, I can't do anything radical like disassemble my amp or take the case off of it as it was pretty expensive and to do that would void the warranty.
But I will try simpler tweaks or tunes.
In my letter to TAS I asserted that all digital interconnects should sound the same. RH responded that no, they don't,and he cited an AES paper in which the authors demonstrate the mechanisms by which interconnects introduce timing errors in the digital signal.
I don't know enough to dispute what he says and he could be right, I suppose, although if timing errors can be introduced by a wire, then they could also be introduced in the circuitry internal in the component, I would think.

Interconnects can be reversed and the sound you hear when you reverse them should be different. Since we know or should know that all wire is directional, not only fuses but all wire, then interconnects should also be directional. Of course many modern interconnects even those from twenty years ago are sold with directional ARROWS pointing in the direction of current flow. This experiment works best for Non- shielded interconnects since the shielding scheme can also be directional. Of the interconnects are NOT marked with directional ARROWS then the problem exists are the two cables of the interconnects both in the same direction or were they arbitrarily connected so that there is a 50% chance they are both in the same direction? Thus, some care with the experiment should be taken to establish the state of the interconnects initially before simply reversing their direction. At the end of the day, listening as you reverse each cable one by one if necessary, you should wind up with both interconnect cables in the correct direction. And the correct orientation of the interconnects should be reflected in the sound, more open, more coherent, more natural sounding. Hint there is writing on the cables you MIGHT be able to assume the cables are both in the same direction sonically when the writing is in the same direction. At least you should be able to test that initial assumption. In the case the interconnects are marks with ARROWS which presumably point in the direction of current flow it might be prudent to reverse them anyway you know just in case they were marked incorrectly. Better safe than sorry.

The same experiment can be performed with existing standard fuse(s), reversing each fuse one at a time and listening to see if the sound improves or degrades.

Happy New Year
Geoff Kait
Machina Dramaqueen

>>> “Give me an idea and I'll try it. Now, I can't do anything radical like disassemble my amp or take the case off of it as it was pretty expensive and to do that would void the warranty.
But I will try simpler tweaks or tunes.” <<<

If I remember correctly you have a considerable number of CDs you do not play because you do not like the way they sound. I think some 290 ??

Select three of those CDs. Listen to them again and try to write down quickly what it is about them you don’t like. Such as ‘too harsh, shouty or aggressive in places’ or ‘dull, boring, sat-on sound’.

Place each one in a plain plastic bag and place them in your deep freezer for around 48 hours. The crucial thing is that when you take them out to defrost them, allow them to return to room temperature Very, Very slowly!! This can be done by wrapping them in a towel or a small blanket.

Now play them again and see if you get any more pleasure from them than previously. Has the harsh, shouty, aggressive sound become less so and become far more pleasurable to listen to ? Is the sound more open, interesting, engaging ?

You see David, nothing drastic. Nothing that can do any harm – because you weren’t listening to them in the first place !!!!!!!!

If you wish to, first read Greg Weaver’s account of his experiences in Soundstage magazine:-

Greg Weaver’s December 1999 article on Freezing

Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.

May said

"You see David, nothing drastic. Nothing that can do any harm – because you weren’t listening to them in the first place !!!!!!!!"

mg

This is a non-truth!

I don't wish to dampen anyones experimenting, but the above statement is false. Read My comments on the freezing as well as Costin's and many others on many forums and you will see mixed reviews as well as some ruining their collections of music. It's irresponsible to make such blanketed statements about any permanent tweak.

Over the years many audiophile music collections have be distorted by permanent Cure All, Must Have tweaks. I would recommend before making such drastic moves that a level of wisdom be applied before jumping in only to find out down the road your music seems to have something missing which is what truly high end systems have found with freezing and many other "fixed" treatments.

Snake oil personalities have a way of sneaking into forums and threads after the facts are documented. The fact is, on any of these tweaks there are 3 sides to the findings. One the lack of info from the tweak removes parts of the info making things sound more clear within a limited soundstage. Second, those who have bigger more realistic 3D front to back as well as side to side stages experience holes (black spaces) in the stage after the tweak. Note: there are no such things as "black holes" in the recording proccess. If you have a black hole or blank space it means info is missing, doesn't matter if you are a reviewer, engineer or hobbyist, this is fact. And 3rd, some who try these tweaks hear nothing at all. I personally have always heard the changes, and although they are a negative (I like real space/real size listening) it depends on what the listener wants.

this said, watch out for the snake oil cure all claims

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

It's pretty much of a rule in high end audio, no matter what tweak or audiophile device you want to talk about you can always find someone somewhere who swears up and down he can't hear it, or it hurts the sound, or some such thing. It happens with the Tice Clock, it happens with crystals, it happens with the Green Pen, it even happens with cables, it happens with Mpingo discs, it happens with the Intelligent Chip, it happens with fuses, it happens with cryogenic treatment and it happens with freezing. Fear not, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. That sound that you're hearing is only the sound of the low spark of high heeled boys. These negative results Michael claims he's got, probably best to just ignore them, they're outliers and can be thrown away.

If you see something that looks like a star
And it's shooting up out of the ground
And your head is spinning from a loud guitar
And you just can't escape from the sound
Don't worry too much, it'll happen to you
We were children once, playing with toys
And the thing that you're hearing is only the sound of
The low spark of high-heeled boys

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

David Harper wrote:

I have switched back and forth between the HDMI connection and the analog RCA connection, and I don't notice any difference.

You lost me there. What was the reason for switching back and forth between the HDMI connection and the analog RCA connection? I trust you don't think that's what I was referring to by reversing the direction of your interconnects.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatics

Here's the rule of thumb most serious listeners follow. Any tweak that you are not able to reverse at will and go back to the place you started is something that someday can lead to unsuccessful listening.

Let me give an example which is quite common.

Lets say you move into a house and set up a system using a lot of "fixed" non-reversable tweaks. Later you move to another house and your collection sounds like crap (this happens way more than people admit to). You start blaming and pointing fingers when it's the collection you ruined. Is that so called designer going to replace your destroyed collection of music?

Now I'm not saying I don't used fixed tweaks at all, but on the CD's or LP's I do tweaking on I'm very careful and sure to have more than one copy. For another example there are some recordings I may have up to 5 copies of. This all depends on how far you get into the hobby.

Doing the Green Pen and the Freezing following geoff and May's directions I used Cars Greatest Hits and gave an account on here of what the results were. I have done these types of must have tweaks many times over as this is part of my job. For myself, I tend to find that the original copies give far more content than the treated ones.

I've asked both geoff and May to do these tests with me so we can be as fair as possible, to which they have refused turning the threads into trolling playgrounds. My offer still stands, but we take our listening more serious than someone not using any stereo at all to make judgements with, and this is where a lot of folks call "snake oil" with some of these tweaks.

All I'm saying to beginners is this. Before you go doing a bunch of things that you can't reverse look at both the negative & positives before making the commitment. People in this hobby fall prey to snake oil everyday and live to regret it, leave the hobby or stop showing up on forums like this one. I think a lot of this proof is looking around this forum and ask why have all the posters left. The answer we have been getting back from the members themselves is "we're being trolled and sold snake oil", and a lack of serious listeners.

You have to judge for yourselves, I certain gave both May & geoff many chances, to only come to the same conclusions most of the forums have. Their reputations of trolling, arguing and snake oil is well founded.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

Your continued personal attacks are noted. Why would we do tests with you? You have proven to be an unreliable tester, have an axe to grind and are a big fat liar. Besides you can't hear the difference between tape and CDs and you don't know the difference between dynamic range and volume. For those reasons I'm out.

Happy New Year,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatics

David Harper wrote:

Geoff-no, I understood what you meant. I only mentioned switching between digital and analog connections to point out that I couldn't hear any difference. Maybe if my digital interconnect was in the wrong direction the analog connection would've sounded better(?)
After reflecting for a couple days about all this stuff,especially Robert Harleys position about the sound quality of interconnects, and tweaks and tunes, I'm thinking that maybe these differences in sound quality would magically disappear if we all did double-blind ABX comparisons. Because they were never there in the first place.Maybe our brains are making stuff up. Just a thought. Not trying to discredit anyone here.
I watched a youtube video"the distortion of sound" It has all these artists and sound engineers complaining that people have ruined music by listening to crappy MP3's on crappy earbuds. If only they would buy good hi-fi gear.
But they completely ignore the fact that the music is ruined by dynamic compression when it's mastered. Never even mentioned it once! So we should feel guilty about our gear,or the format, but it's OK that they allow the music to be squashed and ruined when they record it.The reason most people think MP3 sounds good is because the music they listen to NEVER HAD ANY QUALITY TO BEGIN WITH!!!

One problem is and I have no problem with controlled blind tests really that when someone or a group whatever performs a blind test or double blind test whatever and gets negative results or can't hear the difference or can't hear the tweak or the change in wire direction doesn't mean that there is no difference or that the tweak is worthless or that two amps sound the same, whatever. Why do I say that? Because there are many pitfalls in doing tests and getting the right results. So when someone say I did a double blind test and found that tweak X did absolutely nothing all that means is that HIS test with HIS ears and HIS system came up with a negative result. Someone else might have completely different results. Negative results of a test cannot be generalized and you can't make the statement, I did not hear this Tweak or this change of fuse direction therefore it doesn't work. That's the argument of pseudo skeptics - that what they might refer to as finge tweaks can't possible work because they can't pass a controlled double blind test. Which is kind of ironic because the pseudo skeptic doesn't even do the test so how the heck would he know. We call them Tweakaphobes. Lol

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

geoff said

"For those reasons I'm out"

mg

geoff you and May were out from the beginning way before I ever came up on the Stereophile forum. Sad part is look how many have left this forum because of you.

On the bright side, the CES is here and we are having a blast playing "Acoustic Alchemy" for Pre-showers on the Audolici A-25M as I write this. :)

One interesting comment that geoff makes though that listeners should take note of. Geoff says "Snake oil, you mean like tuning?". If tuning is indeed snake oil, this would mean that all acoustical instruments are "snake oil". It's strange that we listen to instruments that "tune", we use "tuning" as the most refined form of adjusting in not only music but within any mechanical industry, yet geoff tries to make this into some kind of issue. We must keep in mind that geoff says he has never been to TuneLand, he using a portable sony walkman and earbuds as his high end reference system and has not had an in-room stereo for over 9 years, which was so bad he moved on "never looking back", according to him.

He says I attack him lol, what's there to attack I say. He says I lie, what's there to lie about I say. He says I don't know the difference between CD & tape, the differences are what I do for a living. So while geoff is talking, I have a group of listeners who are moving their listening from my system in listening Rm# 2, down to listening Rm# 3 and comparing actual listening notes.

The question continues, are geoff & May ever going to actually get to the listening part of this hobby, or are they going quote magazine reviewers? I guess one of the strange parts as well is that they use reviewers some how as a back up and I may be wrong but have yet to see any audiophiles as their backup or any real time listening sessions. Aren't geoff and May suppose to be the listening references for the reviewers? I have several reviewers scheduled to come over this week to ask me questions and for tips for their personal systems, isn't that the way to look at the hobby instead of the other way around?

Again, I have to say "where are the people here". I've had more listeners come to my place during this Pre-show than the Stereophile forum has had over this last week. Is that weird to only me? A Gal who won't show her system and a Guy who doesn't have one to show, "talking" and not Empirically Doing? This is screwy on any level of listening to music.

just looks like another Stereophile forum spin thread to me, courtesy of beginners & people without even having stereo systems, but maybe that's just me attacking :)

I understand you guys are talking, but the empirical guy is not about talking. The empirical part of the industry and hobby is based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

my audiophile friends around the world, remember when we were a family of true listeners? that's for your emails of support!

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

Michael wrote,

"I understand you guys are talking, but the empirical guy is not about talking. The empirical part of the industry and hobby is based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

my audiophile friends around the world, remember when we were a family of true listeners? that's for your emails of support!"

It's a very good thing you're not all about theory and logic. That's kind of what I've been trying to tell you lo these past two years. Glad to see you finally admit it. If a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass so much.

We are family
I got all my sisters with me
We are family
Get up ev'rybody and sing!

Happy New Year

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

...that's a direct quote of the definition of the word "empirical". Your such a little old funny troll geoffy!

anyway in the real world

We just loaded "night at the opera" using vintage Superphon & Luxman at the pre-show for a house full of guys (one gal). A good time Stereophile!

Will be giving listening reports as the CES goes on. This year is a little different as we are doing around the clock listening sessions as well as the live stream, Get Tuned Girls, and show reporting. 3 rooms instead of one this year. Thank you Silver Sevens for the buffet!

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

Glad you're having fun, but what does your orgy of obsessive listening sessions have to do with the original post, which was why his system sounds great one day and like crap the next? As is your habit you refuse to address the actual topic and go off on one of your long (and repetitive) tuning diatribes. And your continued obsession with me and May Belt.

Why don't you take a vacation and when you come back maybe you can regale us with your keen insights into audio tweaks and why the system sounds good one day and hellish the next. That's what this thread is about, not your strange nightmarish Prairie Dogs on Crack listening habits. Get thee to a library!

Listen a little, tune a little. Listen a little, tune a little. Yes, that's a full life. Lol

Here's the original post. I suggest you read the parts about Logic and tweaks and his question, "why does my system sound change so abruptly?" If you can't stay on topic which it actually appears you can't, why not take a vacation? It is unprofessional for you in my opinion to continue your Geoff and May attacks as well as your Tuning diatribes whilst pretending to be a participant in a discussion. You most likely don't see how desperate and ignorant this all makes you appear. Just my two centavos. But if that's how you roll, hey, knock yourself out.

David's original post,

"Im an empirical guy. I don't believe in audiophile snake oil.I believe in what makes sense to me logically. Im not saying Im right. Im just stating facts.
Having said that, Im faced with a mystery, and it is this;
On one particular day my stereo sounds awful. Opaque, closed down,no detail etc.
On a different day, the same system sounds amazing. Open, transparent,detailed,like a twenty thousand dollar reference system.
And I haven't changed anything! What's up with this? Is this difference in my brain? Is it the humidity in the room? Is it in my houses electrical wiring?
Has anyone else experienced this?"

It is the things that seem least logical that are responsible for his (David's) abrupt changes in sound as I already described earlier in the thread. Which is ironic, since you just described yourself as not being one of those people who values LOGIC. The further irony of course is that you consider yourself such a Great Listener. Yet you don't listen. Logic is a actually the single most important virtue when it comes to solving problems of which there are a great many in this hobby of audio. As I have outlined on many previous occasions the methodology i use in developing products and in imoroving the sound arise from logic and reason. Where do we go from here? What is causing this or that sound? Now that we've arrived at another plateau of sound quality what will get us to the next plateau? and when we find a new problem how do we address it? These are all part of the science and art of LOGIC. No real audiophile should go anywhere without it.

The only way to know when you've done something truly great is when your spine tingles. - tweak manufacturer axiom

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

David:

I am probably repeating what someone else recommended, but at least that should reinforce my suggestion as a credible one..
In my experience, I noticed if I turn off my system overnight and turn it back on the next day to listen, the quality is noticeably inferior.

I now just leave it on 24x7 and notice no more inconsistencies between listening sessions.

Note: I only leave the main integrated amplifier on..any ancillary equipment I find can be turned off and on without impacting my listening day to day.

Best Regards,

Ron

rrstesiak wrote:

David:

I am probably repeating what someone else recommended, but at least that should reinforce my suggestion as a credible one..
In my experience, I noticed if I turn off my system overnight and turn it back on the next day to listen, the quality is noticeably inferior.

I now just leave it on 24x7 and notice no more inconsistencies between listening sessions.

Note: I only leave the main integrated amplifier on..any ancillary equipment I find can be turned off and on without impacting my listening day to day.

Best Regards,

Ron

I concur. And, leaving it playing has an additional benefit. I use a tuner playing at very low levels when using solid state stuff. This keeps the cabling passing a signal and that is the single best tweak of sorts that I have encountered.

rrstesiak wrote:

David:

I am probably repeating what someone else recommended, but at least that should reinforce my suggestion as a credible one..
In my experience, I noticed if I turn off my system overnight and turn it back on the next day to listen, the quality is noticeably inferior.

I now just leave it on 24x7 and notice no more inconsistencies between listening sessions.

Note: I only leave the main integrated amplifier on..any ancillary equipment I find can be turned off and on without impacting my listening day to day.

Best Regards,

Ron

First of all welcome back and I am not intending to rain on your coming home party nor do I wish to give you the business such that you will have a brain aneurism and pack your bags, again. But it might be worth pointing out a couple of things. One, every Yutz with ears knows that leaving the equipment ON permanently or semi permanently em as you don't have to wait the requisite one or two hours whatever to listen to tunes. Two, the suggestion of leaving the equipment ON doesn't address the OP actually since what he's actually referring to are things, mysterious things, that make the system sound great one day and terrible the next or whatever. So actually your kind suggestion of leaving the amps ON is a little bit non-responsive to the OP. Third, while leaving the equipment ON all the time or most of the time avoids down time while you're waiting for things to warm up it doesn't prevent the real culprits from degrading the sound. I suggest you read my initial post on this thread in which I spell out the short list of likely suspects in the hunt for the things that make systems perform unpredictably. That short list - as it should - includes those things that one assumes the OP had in mind, you know, those mysterious, unknown, unspeakable things that go BUMP in the night.

Happy Nee Year

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica