 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
172.58.241.110
Essence of Music certainly sucked. Clark Johnsen's Lotions 11 article is the last time anybody compared CD enhancers, and that's eons ago. 2006 to be precise.
Edits: 08/08/24Follow Ups:
My best--YVMV!
Des
Good old George. The guy who conconcluded 90% of all CDs are in reverse polarity. Thanks, George. Lol
.
.
2022/03/30 Historical Records CENSORED
Nt
JTR has no CRC checks so you don't know if you got a clean rip.
.
2022/03/30 Historical Records CENSORED
Nt
what gives...now you're into CD's?
That's 30 years in the past. That's so Rip Van Winkle, dinky poo
Nt
lots already know about you, new ones don't
Have you been wiped off the archives?
Nt
Nt
Nt
how to make survival money at your age of 80+
So you prefer your software WITH VIRUSES AND MALWARE ???
.
2022/03/30 Historical Records CENSORED
Huh?! I talking about the CD Player. When you play CDs it's considerable bettervSQ if you can disingenuous the RS codes. Obviously not for the average person. And the discs have to be immaculate.
Geoff, you've written about this before and I am still skeptical that this can be done (but you know that is my nature). Can you give any details or could you put me in touch with the person who did this? I am intrigued to know more.
TiA
The average audiophile can't do this is because the Reed Solomon codes are necessary for CD playback, generally speaking. They do have a reason for being there. One would have to have immaculate CDs, vibration isolation for transport/player, stabilize the disc somehow, etc. to even have a shot.Ensure absolute level of CD, minimize scattered light problem, stabilize the disc. In short, not too many audiophiles would get good results by disengaging the RS codes, it would be a complete disaster - assuming they knew how to. Besides, why would he tell you? :-) The river is deep and wide, break on through to the other side.
Edits: 08/12/24 08/12/24
Error correction is not perfect but I believe the probability of it being correct is way higher than it being wrong. Just curious as to why you would not want to correct known errors?
Even if you perfect all the tweaky stuff relating to the transport the disc will still contain manufacturing errors where a certain percentage of pits will not be stamped correctly so errors are baked in - the beauty of the CD system is that it is tolerant of these faults to allow a low priced solution. Antithetical to the audiophile, I know.
Hang on, what if you could extract all the audio data on the CD in advance and check it against a database to ensure accuracy and then play that data? I think I'm on to something ...
We're definitely not on the same track. You are putting words in my mouth. I never said there were manufacturing errors. This is example of a logical fallacy. Come on guys, get it together. As far as pits not being stamped correctly you're grasping at straws. I already explained the issues, maybe go back and read slower. The only error in manufacture I'm aware of is that CDs are often out of round. But I didn't include that in my list of issues.
Edits: 08/12/24 08/12/24 08/12/24
You have 'written' there are issues but you haven't 'explained' any of them, especially not why turning off error correction is an advantage. Let's just leave it that you're misinformed until proven otherwise.
Not in his vocabulary.
Nt
I've only been discussing these issues with CD playback for ten or twenty years. Who's counting?There's a search engine here for a reason.
Edits: 08/12/24 08/12/24
*
Nt
nt
They're not all placebos since I've experienced a clear improvement(almost immediately obvious to many educated listeners) which is unfortunately not commercially available. I believe at least some of the sprays work similarly according to the designer but they aren't permanent. Some tweaks work. It's unfortunate we call them tweaks which implies triviality.
It is only us hoi polloi that see a naked king.
What you, the hoi poloi believe is often because of conditioning.
Sorry it works. It was offered to many companies who made super CDs and they all turned it down although they heard the difference and it would have cost pennies. A few of the developer's friends know and use it. But the inventor's widow is so hurt by his mistreatment she asked us not to reveal it. So I don't.
In this case you can't try it unless I meet you and demo it which I can't do. But don't slough off stuff as placebos without at least trying them. I've made the mistake. For on I doubted vibration isolation for electronics and when I finally did try it under my CD drive(Pioneer DVD player into a separate DAC) it was as if I just spent thousands instead of hundreds and it was just the drive.
I was being a bit facetious. When I read it was appreciated by educated listeners that raised a flag and then it wasn't available to the general public that raised the flag a bit more that this could appeal to those susceptible to the King's new clothes effect.
Obviously, I haven't heard it so take my comments in that context. I am interested in CD transport tweaks as they should be objectively provable: they must either allow the transport to read data correctly where it was incorrect before, they the lower jitter of the recovered data or they allow the transport servos to track more easily and so draw less current that might couple noise into the analog domain. If you're using a separate transport that pretty much rules out the last one, I think the effects of jitter are way overblown and who knows whether the data off the disc in real time is truly correct (though that must be provable). My inner engineer thinks that if you perceived an issue with reading CDs and invented a solution (pun intended) to fix that issue that you would also do something to prove it had worked rather than just say it does! And wouldn't proof help sales? But that never happens :(
And, or course, it's always good to bait Geoff Kait. Hey - that should be a t-shirt!
Nt
BGK
Nt
None so blind that will not see.
That's very interesting that you think they all aren't permanent since I have found all the one that work are permanent. Why do you feel they aren't permanent? I realize some anti static sprays might not be permanent. But not all CD treatments address static electric charge on CDs. In addition, some CD treatments used to claim they remove mold release compound MRC from CD surface yet I am 80% sure MRC is not used in CD manufacture.
Edits: 08/10/24 08/10/24
I was only speaking about static electricity, my bad for not being more specific, which does affect CD play noticeably. And most of those treatments, such as spray, are temporary, sometimes not even lasting for a full CD.
There are many things that affect the sound. Scattered laser light, the colors of the CD label, whether the CD disc is properly stabilized, vibration isolation of the player/transport. AND the effect of the things in the local environment that influence hearing. In fact, I'd opine this last issue is BY FAR - the most detrimental to the sound. It's things not related to the audio system that are the biggest problem. Live and let die.
Edits: 08/12/24
I totally agree about microphonics in electronics and especially concerning digital. I'm not sure I agree about your last assertion unless you're talking about room interactions but I always try to keep an open mind.
You're right, I'm not talking about room resonances. I thought I made that clear. It's not a complex theory, it's actually very simple, the more things you take out of the room the better the SQ. The sky's the limit. I guess audiophiles really are stuck in first gear. They don't like anything new. They tend to psych themselves out.
Placebos, expectation bias, and other pseudo skeptic psychological mumbo jumbo.
Edits: 08/08/24 08/08/24
But usually the audiophile ego thinks it is real and they must have special hearing and then try to explain how it works - that makes me unhappy :)
Nt
We humans are easily fooled. It is how we are wired. We can't help it.
That is why we need to be so careful to guard against these things.
View YouTube Video
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Reading the audio data off CDs is one area of audiophilia that should be quantifiable - is the data read correctly, is it presented at the right time (jitter) and does it affect how hard the servos have to work to recover the data (power supply modulation). Tweak proponents could measure these things and prove efficacy but in the upside down audiophile world it is for the rational to disprove them. Some (many?) believe everything makes a difference and will tweak anything/everything and, perhaps, manufacturers are the same and they don't have a rational idea what they are doing and so wouldn't know how to prove anything.
For full disclosure I think it obvious my expectation bias is that these things don't work so I don't try them. Thus I can't say they don't work, only that it is very unlikely they do.
The polycarbonate layer is not completely transparent to the CD laser. It's only 90%. Whereas optical glass is 97% or higher. That's why some Japanese CDs sound so fabulous, SHM CDs. Super High-performance Materials. They use optical glass for the clear layer. Now, image there's a liquid spray treatment that makes the clear layer behave like optical glass. That would be news, right?
You almost proposed something that could be quantified in its effect on the signal reflected back to the receiver and, hence, the recovered data. I am sure a few back of the envelope calculations would show us if this is plausible or specious.
Nt
blah
Let me think about it for a few days and I'll get back to you.
Nt
nt
Play a cd. Then put a few drops of dawn or similar on the cd, rinse and wipe dry. Play cd again. Is there a difference?
Nt
Nt
Nice!
Nt
That's probably because CDs are now obsolete. I should know, I have several thousand of them, now all copied to my computer. The computer doesn't know they are music; they are simply files that are copied bit for bit from the CD. They are played bit by bit with a checksum ensuring the accuracy of the bitstream. The entire notion of using a CD player is so 2006.
Nt
Yes, I agree CDs can be more convenient, but downloaded music in high resolution is far superior in sound quality.
That's funny. If only you could hear what I've heard with my ears. You talk a good game, though. :-)
Edits: 08/08/24
nt
Nt
Nt
what mental aberration are you sporting today, lord garth
True- more Bullshit from the (D). Vote (R) in November.
glad you are awake also,
the bull is off any chart or anything else, it's overwhelming for unaware folks
Nt
Nt
your presence is already proven here and, you know, elsewhere
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
It works for cars, so why not for CDs?
Currently, my fave is Goo-Begone actually.
Actually, Rain-X was all the rage 30 years ago.
Although I have to admit to being a VERY infrequent user of CD's these days. My LP frontend makes CD sound like, well, a CD.
Obviously you should have used tweaks for CDs.
...with a microfiber cloth to clean and polish CD's.
I use Brillianize as well but not as a treatment. Its main purpose in my use is to clean the CDs I borrow from the Mid Continent Public Library. One pump spray and a reasonably careful wiping with a microfiber cloth usually does the trick. I don't know how much polishing it does but so far it hasn't damaged any of my CDs or CD-Rs. The bottle has lasted a long time so I'm not worried about the cost of a second bottle when I finally need another.
There is L'Art du Son which I currently use.
I've heard of it but never tried it, how does L'art duh sound work, one wonders.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
