[ScottMayo]

Well that shows how much technical know-how I have.  I have read a lot of overview-type documents about the process and that's the impression I had.  Sorry for the misinformation, it wasn't malicious.

The scary thing was the misinformation at the Genesis website you referred to. Here's a guy who claims to know how CDs work and is telling us what problems his approach fixes, and he's got a LOT of the particulars wrong. He's talkling about pit jitter. It doesn't exist. He's saying that he doesn't quite believe that the CD player clock is in sole control of the rate the bits are processed. Sheesh. And this guy used to be an IT professional of some kind?

I believe you when you say you hear a difference. But have you done a true blind test? I've copied CDs and had them sound identical - admittedly I didn't use black CDs, and admittedly I expected them to sound identical, and I got what I expected to get....

[miklorsmith]

I haven't done any blind testing.  Every time I try to undertake a blind test my head hurts and it isn't fun.  So, I don't do it.

I haven't done any comparatives keeping some parts of my copy process and dumping others.  I pretty much followed the white paper at once, figuring that if it was worth pursuing it should be pursued faithfully.  About the only thing I haven't done that's outlined in the paper is the Melody discs, which aren't available in the US, and the linear power supply for the burner.

I was about to pull the trigger on a battery supply for the burner until I heard George 2.0 was out.  I burned 5 copies of my brand, sent them to Mr. Louis.  He's copying the same discs his way and sending the whole thing back.  He says they'll be in the mail later this week.

When you get together with Clark, have him bring his burner and burn some of your CD's you know well.

[ScottMayo]

When you get together with Clark, have him bring his burner and burn some of your CD's you know well.

At this rate, he's going to need a U-haul to bring stuff, and I'm going to have the most tweaked, adjusted, fine tuned system on the East coast. My reputation's going to be in ruins.  

[Marbles]

At this rate, he's going to need a U-haul to bring stuff, and I'm going to have the most tweaked, adjusted, fine tuned system on the East coast. My reputation's going to be in ruins.  

Too late.....

[John Casler]

When you get together with Clark, have him bring his burner and burn some of your CD's you know well.

At this rate, he's going to need a U-haul to bring stuff, and I'm going to have the most tweaked, adjusted, fine tuned system on the East coast. My reputation's going to be in ruins.  

Don't forget the "Power Cords"

I can't wait for an eyes wide closed   "play by play" on that.

[skrivis]

Perhaps!

However, I would advise (and have so advised for fifteen years) simply not to drop big bucks on any of them. My fine-tuning procedures produce results on a decent Sony, say, that easily equal the dcS and Wadia efforts.

Moreover, were we never to admit how "broken" they all are, the truth of the matter would forever lie undiscovered.

clark

I definitely agree with not spending lots of money on a CD transport. I've been using Magnavox/Philips players with a digital out.

When you said they're all broken, I thought you meant a basic design flaw. How would "fine-tuning" help that?

[skrivis]

The scary thing was the misinformation at the Genesis website you referred to. Here's a guy who claims to know how CDs work and is telling us what problems his approach fixes, and he's got a LOT of the particulars wrong. He's talkling about pit jitter. It doesn't exist. He's saying that he doesn't quite believe that the CD player clock is in sole control of the rate the bits are processed. Sheesh. And this guy used to be an IT professional of some kind?

I believe you when you say you hear a difference.  ...

Hearing a difference doesn't mean there is a difference. I remember reading about a show where the infamous Enid Lumley was demonstrating how you can set one of those white plastic tripods that come in pizza boxes (they hold the box off the top of the pizza so you don't get a huge mess - great invention!) on top of a CD player and make it sound better.

Such was the force of Enid's personality, presentation, and persuasion that lots of people heard a difference. When they went home to try it (Enid-less), they heard no difference at all.

As for IT pros, I'm one, and I can say that most IT people don't know much about how the electronics actually work. That's for the engineers who design the stuff. We may configure some of the electronics, but we mostly deal with software.

In fact, we have no real way of testing the end results and getting objective results. We may be able to say it works or doesn't work in our environment, and may even be able to pinpoint why, but that doesn't always translate well to another environment or usage. That's why benchmarks are so questionable. (Lies, Damn Lies, and Benchmarks) In fact, a lot of shops don't even do much testing to pinpoint bottlenecks. If it seems slow, throw some more hardware at it.

Computers are complex systems, and it takes a lot of knowledge to be able to understand what the whole thing is doing. There is also the problem of the computer-human interface. We could speculate that it's this interface that causes all the trouble.

[Bob Wilcox]

miklorsmith,
my understanding is that CDs are made with an injection molding, not stamping, process and that aluminum sheet stamping never comes into the picture, regardless of which of the three (in 1994) manufacturing methods are used. The aluminum or gold is vapor deposited after the pits are formed in the mold. Nevertheless, I would assume that deterioration of the mold is a factor.

Somewhere over at http://www.cdrinfo.com are some pictures showing the stamper deterioration that occurs during mass production of CDs. I wonder if a common factor in making improved copies is that the new copy makes life easier for the transport servo correction.

I have found it important to burn at 4X or below and to rip to the hard drive first. I have had no luck making an on-the-fly copy that sounds better than the original although just about any copy I have made has sounded diffrent from the original in some way.

Bob

[KJ]

How would you imagine diagonals to be interpreted by the CDP laser? Pit or land? Yes or no? One or Zero?

If a CDP can't tell if it's a pit or land (yes or no, etc) how will a CDRW system be able to read it accurately in order to write it correctly?

-KJ

[Marbles]

How would you imagine diagonals to be interpreted by the CDP laser? Pit or land? Yes or no? One or Zero?

If a CDP can't tell if it's a pit or land (yes or no, etc) how will a CDRW system be able to read it accurately in order to write it correctly?

-KJ

With EAC, it will re-read (repeatedly if necessary) it until it determines if it is a pit or not.


Thanks Skrivis...you have given Mayo the opourtunity to say, "I heard a difference, but I don't beleive there was a difference because it wasn't under double Ray Charles conditions, with a control group, so it wasn't good methodology.  Therefore, there might have been a difference and there might not have been.  What I heard doesn't matter because it was a sighted test, and as everyone knows    , sighted tests are invalid......"

Clark, you are wasting your time....

[miklorsmith]

Don't discount the transport entirely.  My Modwright player (heavy, with linear power supply) as transport definitely sounds better than my Toshiba 3980, which has a switching supply.  The Modwright is much smoother and more refined.  I'll send the Toshiba off to get modded soon and we'll see how the gap closes.

I don't think "broken" was intended to be interpreted absolutely.  CDP's obviously play discs.  But, they obviously sound different too.  So, the level of "brokenness" varies.

[skrivis]

With EAC, it will re-read (repeatedly if necessary) it until it determines if it is a pit or not.


Thanks Skrivis...you have given Mayo the opourtunity to say, "I heard a difference, but I don't beleive there was a difference because it wasn't under double Ray Charles conditions, with a control group, so it wasn't good methodology.  Therefore, there might have been a difference and there might not have been.  What I heard doesn't matter because it was a sighted test, and as everyone knows    , sighted tests are invalid......"

Clark, you are wasting your time....

I do believe that controlled tests have their place. I also believe that you don't buy stereo equipment to do listening tests.

I might snigger a bit after reading the "technical" description of how Intelligent Chips work, but if you like 'em... it's your money to do with as you please.

I don't feel that most tweaks are cost-effective, and I'd encourage someone to buy more CDs or albums instead of fancy AC cords. I think you'll get more enjoyment from your money that way.

As for giving someone an excuse, he'd have had excuses anyway if that's the way he wants it. I was just pointing out that you _do_ sometimes have to change the conditions and see what happens. "Not all that glisters is gold."

[clarkjohnsen]

When you said they're all broken, I thought you meant a basic design flaw. How would "fine-tuning" help that?

By ameliorization. And there is a design flaw. None of the idiots (I quote Romy here) understand the optical thang, for starts.

The fine-tuning process opens our ears to the what-might-have-been.

clark

[clarkjohnsen]

Clark, you are wasting your time....

Well that's a bit rough!

But I am now aware, as I had not been when I began here, that Scott is an apparently indefatiguable contrarian. And that he seems to enjoy not being able to hear the stuff that, oh, tout le monde does.

Plus I have learned that he connects his speakers with zip cord...  

There! I did it!

I just used my first-ever emoticon!

clark

[miklorsmith]

The idiots designing the players, the idiots commenting here, or some other group?

I wouldn't call Scott a contrarian, but a non-believer.  If it doesn't make sense to him, it's wrong and that's that unless proven otherwise by DBT.  Of course, this is a common viewpoint.  Scott does a better job of supporting his ideas than most.

Based on his system, I'll bet you'll be treated to some of the best zip cord you've ever heard.

[woodsyi]

Clark,

Good luck with your ameliorations.  Short of a visitation, a la Saul to Paul on the road to Damascus, Scott will not believe.  He won't be inclined to believe beyond what he can understand with logic and science.  He is a skeptic and an audiophilic  heretic through and through!  I will pray for you.    

[ScottMayo]

Thanks Skrivis...you have given Mayo the opourtunity to say, "I heard a difference, but I don't beleive there was a difference because it wasn't under double Ray Charles conditions, with a control group, so it wasn't good methodology."

Clark, you are wasting your time....

Um... this was uncalled for. Clark's coming over the hear the RM/x. He's also going to show me some gear, and it's all in good fun. No one is wasting their time because no one, I think, is doing this to "prove points". Hey, maybe he'll decide to buy a pair of RM/x, but if so it won't be because I "proved" anything.

I'll tell you what might happen, though. Let's sat Clark does something to the system and I hear an improvement. (Not a "difference". Anyone can hear a "difference", whenever they want to. I'm talking about a must-have improvement.) And let's say I'm flabbergasted, because all he did was balance a moon rock on my speaker cable or something.

What happens then? Hopefully, I borrow his moon rock, and after he's gone I do the kind of rigorous testing that I believe in. I'll spend a day on it and if people want to come over and watch, I'm good with that. And after that's done, I'll know if the rock does anything or not. At which point - no matter what I learned - I'll be on here with an account of what happened and how I verified it. It won't matter if I find the result unbelievable - all that matters to me is that I find it verifiable.

In other words, unlike too many reviewers, before I put my name to "X works", I'll be sure that it does, and I'll know why I think so and I'll be able to explain in small words why know I'm not deluding myself.

For me, it's not about the gear, and it's never been about the "fun" of adjusting and fiddling. When I'm in front of speakers, I want one thing - a connection with the music. Gear mostly gets in the way of that and gear I have to keep improving or fussing at gets in the way most of all.

Look at my room sometime - RM/x, Bryston amps, and big floor-to-ceiling treatments. All of that was the result of careful comparisons, blind tests where possible, and repeated evaluations. I know why it's all there, I know mystcism and maybe weren't part of those decisions, and I'm happy. What's wrong with that?

[ScottMayo]

But I am now aware, as I had not been when I began here, that Scott is an apparently indefatiguable contrarian.

I prefer to think of it as "seeking truth, discarding error, and spanking the snake oil salesmen."  

Plus I have learned that he connects his speakers with zip cord...  

Hey, I do not! That's silver coated milspec 8ga copper in there, and using silver makes me an Offical Audiophile! Ask anyone!

Sheesh. Those cables are my ONE piece of audio jewlery. Don't diss the shiny red cables. Well, unless you've got better.  
[/quote]

[clarkjohnsen]

In other words, unlike too many reviewers, before I put my name to "X works", I'll be sure that it does, and I'll know why I think so and I'll be able to explain in small words why know I'm not deluding myself.

Much as I too enjoy dissing reviewers -- http://positive-feedback.com/Issue12/diaries.htm -- the suggestion that "too many" of them are both faking it and deluding themselves crosses the line. On the contrary, most of those fellows are very earnest and quite sure of themselves, however clueless they may be.

Where reviewers do stumble, is with their systems. Nine out of ten worst hi-fis I've ever heard are in recording studios and reviewers' homes.

clark

[miklorsmith]

You call others idiots and in your next post offer a link to an article you wrote calling yourself, essentially, a genious.

Humble guy.