In Reply to: Why pointless? posted by KlausR. on March 14, 2006 at 00:32:17:
Your claim (or suggestion) is drawing much scrutiny for a few major reasons:1) You (or anyone else) has not made any correlation between storage environment and any physical changes to the disc (including magnetisation).
2) Your test (although blind) is COMPLETELY at the hands of suggestion - there is no effort WHATSOEVER to attempt to eliminate or even minimize psychological bias.
3) Your test was not repeated. All you need to do is keep inviting eager participants who will gleefully report three different sounding discs. THe problem is, until you have a specific subject perform the comparisons A NUMBER OF TIMES in a controlled test environment - there simply IS NO TEST.
All we have here is someone claiming to hear specific differences between three discs. It's an amazing claim. It would be even more amazing if something resembling a real test was used to validate these claims.
Were there even SIGNIFICANT environmental differences between storage areas (aka heat, humidity, direct sunlight, darkness etc) - and what would QUALIFY as a sufficient difference? Will discs stored at 70 differ from discs stored at 73? How about at 50% relative humidity versus 25%? How about submerged in water versus stored in a vacuum? Are specific environmental conditions associated with a specific alteration to the disc or its surface? Or is all you are going to say for now is "the environment *in general* changes the sound qualities of discs *in general*?
Can you see why there is rebuttle?
I guess the biggest problem with this post is that it belongs in tweaks and not prop plaza.
Cheers,
Presto
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Klaus. here is why. - Presto 12:24:45 03/14/06 (5)
- Re: Klaus. here is why. - KlausR. 04:46:43 03/18/06 (3)
- Re: Physical changes - geoffkait 05:22:30 03/18/06 (2)
- Re: Physical changes - KlausR. 07:51:11 03/18/06 (1)
- Re: Physical changes - geoffkait 10:59:24 03/18/06 (0)
- Re: Klaus. here is why. - Pat D 08:43:39 03/17/06 (0)