[clarkjohnsen]

Scott will not believe. He won't be inclined to
believe beyond what he can understand with logic and science.

Hmm... "Let me not hear facts figures and logic
Fain would I hear lore legends and magic."

That's what the musician sings, and I'm with the musician.

Audio after all is more an art than a science, at least in its
current phase. As I've often written, audio is the last great
unexplored realm of the traditional spectra. Of optics even, we know much more. Enough, to be sure, that should someone actually versed in the art redesign the digital player we might have the problem licked.

Matter of fact, I know that for a fact!

clark

[ScottMayo]

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!

Heh. I'm all for acknowledging the limits of what we don't know, but first we need to take what we do know to the limits.

How many people fiddle with this or that new cable, while listening to music in a 12x12x8 room without a single acoustic treatment in sight? "The midbass sounds loose - let's try another speaker cable."

Of course, 10 seconds spent in a nerdy "scientific" software tool points out that unless the new cable happens to eat 47, 94 and 141Hz signals, the bass is always going to sound like slop, in that untreated room. The ear might not pick out the big bump at 47Hz - ears aren't quite so discerning about low bass - but that 141Hz hump is going to be maddening. Damn, maybe it's the interconnects. Let's replace them next.

 

As part of my audio consulting gig, I've talked with people who have their speakers against the wall, they sit under a stairwell, and they note that the sound is boomy and the imaging isn't so good. They want to know if a new cable will help. That's what some reviewer told them! Such is the power of audio mysticism that people would rather spend $1000 on a wire, than take a hard look at their room. Move your chair and put up some traps (which can be built for under $50 each if you want to put in the effort) and you can solve a host of problems that your cables, your intelligent chips and your CD demagnitizer cannot touch.

Now in my case, I think I've got problems like that sorted out, so I'm willing to kick back and play with a tweak or two. Which doesn't mean I'm going to put a picture of myself in the freezer, thank you Peter Belt, but I'm willing to listen if someone swears to me that my CDs can be better than they are - if they are willing to prove it to my ears, anyway.

[Rob Babcock]

I think most of the "art" is in taking the time to understand the science.  After all, it's not what we don't know that hurts us, it's all the stuff we know that isn't so!

[clarkjohnsen]

I think most of the "art" is in taking the time to understand the science.

All well and good, but what pray tell is the science exactly behind the Intelligent Chip, or the Reality Check CD duplicator (or for that matter any CD-R process), or vibration isolation for a CD player? They all have desirable sonic effects, ya know.

Take your time.  

clark

[chadh]

All well and good, but what pray tell is the science exactly behind the Intelligent Chip, or the Reality Check CD duplicator (or for that matter any CD-R process), or vibration isolation for a CD player? They all have desirable sonic effects, ya know.

Take your time.  

clark

Do they all have desirable sonic effects?  How does one "know"?
Short of a sound, scientific explanation or verification under double blind testing, I just dont' see how you can even come close to "knowing" about desirable sonic effects.  Sure, "The Musician" may not care for facts and figures and logic - but the musician probably isn't trying to tell anyone that he "knows" that one thing sounds better than another.

Do I think we should all be searching for sceientific explanations for everything we think we hear, or constantly subjecting ourselves to the rigors of double blind testing?  God no.  As far as I'm concerned, if you THINK you hear something then that's good enough for you - it's your money and you should spend it the way you see fit.  Enjoy your music as best you can.  If you do this using cheap electronics and a splattering of holy water from the local bishop, then that's great!  If you enjoy your music more by listening to Bose and drinking large amounts of chianti, that's fantastic.   If you accomplish this by spending large amounts of money on components that have garnered high praise in the industry literature, good for you!   For all I know, we might all enjoy the music that much more if we spent half as much on equipment and channeled the rest of the cash into paying hypnotists to convince us that everything sounds better.

Personally, I'm thrilled to listen to stories about all sorts of experiences, to learn what other people enjoy and what they don't.  I certainly want to know if your enjoyment of music improves by using an intellichip, as I might have similar subjective experiences to you.  Just don't try to tell me that you KNOW there exist "desirable sonic effects" if you're not prepared to subject your claims to scruitiny.

Chad

[clarkjohnsen]

 How does one "know"?

Always a good question.

Epistemology still baffles many of us. For reference I recommend one of the greatest books ever written, Personal Knowledge, by Michael Polanyi. The chapter on Connoisseurship is an eye- and ear-opener.

From an Amazon review:

Books on epistemology tend to be dreary affairs. Epistemology, which is the branch of philosophy that studies how human beings acquire and "validate" their knowledge, tend to be largely speculative and logical. Most theories of epistemology that are inflicted upon the world are nothing more than the highly artificial constructions of some philosopher telling us all how we "ought" to attain and validate our knowledge. Any correspondence to how men really attain knowledge is usually pure coincidence...

In the light of all this philosophical pretension, it is refreshing to come across a book like Polanyi's "Personal Knowledge." Polanyi was a chemist trained in the methods of science. He understands, as few merely speculative philosophers do, the necessity of deriving theories from facts, rather than facts from theories. Yet Polanyi is more than just a scientist; he is also a very shrewd and critical thinker who does not shrink from challenging long cherished assumptions within his own discipline of science. "Personal Knowledge" is, among other things, an attack on what might be called "naive objectivism," which can be defined as the epistemological view which holds that the only valid knowledge is that which can be articulated and tested by strictly impersonal methods. Polanyi demonstrates why this view of knowledge is untenable. Some of man's most important knowledge, he argues, is tacit and inarticulable, like the knowledge of how to swim or how to judge a work of art. Yet men use such knowledge and even depend on it for their survival.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226672883/102-7398342-2692123?v=glance

Happy reading, bro'.

clark

[miklorsmith]

Nice reference.

The concern can be split into two issues:  Do we trust our own perceptions?  This could be addressed by the book and its seeming perspective.  The other is how much weight we ascribe to views of others whom we know little or nothing about.

Opinions can be found around the web and in print espousing the unassailable virtues of nearly every available product.  The cynicism of others is borne of this unbridled, and often misplaced, enthusiasm.

Now, once we've acquired Xcool2000, we can decide how we are to wrap our brains around it and assign value.  Some will trust their perceptions, others will want independent verification.  The latter category will carry more sway with the dubious public, seeking some objective measure.

1) How do you "know" you know vs. 2) How do others judge the merits of your views.  I don't think others doubt the sincerity of your knowledge, only whether it is reliable and transferable to their own situations.

[woodsyi]

Clark,

Sure, tacit knowing through indwelling inclination of higher ontic level is an elegant way of saying we know before we understand.  It's the old "gut feeling" theory -- just put nicely.  And I agree -Polayni is good.  I just think there is a better "gut feeling" theory.  I would rather feed my gut with good wine and improve my feeling, thereby also increasing my enjoyment of music.  I always enjoy music more with fire in my belly.    

[nathanm]

How many people fiddle with this or that new cable, while listening to music in a 12x12x8 room without a single acoustic treatment in sight? "The midbass sounds loose - let's try another speaker cable."

Because it's convenient to do.  The tweaks that actually provide significant, easily heard results require a lot of work to implement.  It's a big project to actually turn a room into a place with an even frequency response and still be aesthetically pleasing enough to want to spend time in.  In contrast, playing with new toys is the path of least resistance and thus the one most often chosen.  Still, I don't understand why anyone cares about the .5% of difference stuff.  Acoustics is a palpable phenomenon you experience every single day of your life without any special training or knowledge.  Everyone can hear the changes in sound based on where you are.

There's no free lunch, you aren't going to achieve great sound by simply throwing money at it.  Every article out there illustrating how someone built a stereo or home theater room makes plain that it's a LOT of freaking work!  You already get screwed out of the gate if you've got a squarish room.  I know, I'm the guy with the 12x12x8 room!  Midbass?  WHAT midbass?

If you aren't prepared for the labor involved in remodeling and acoustic treatment that's okay, but just be content to deal with the compromises. It also wouldn't hurt to take a hint from your wives and other laypeople; these folks have something we don't; the ability to enjoy music pretty much anywhere and on any equipment!  I envy that!  That's what hi-fi does to you, it makes you completely neurotic.  You enjoy music less even though it sounds better, you're always wondering if it could sound better, you ignore emotion in favor of breaking the sound into descriptive pieces, and you're poorer than you were before.  If audio is an art then it must be the art of getting less enjoyment for more money!

[ScottMayo]

I envy that! That's what hi-fi does to you, it makes you completely neurotic.

I'm not neurotic! I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not! I'm sane I tell you! Sane! Sane! Saaaaaaaaane!!

*pantpantpant*

There. I feel much better now.

[viggen]

Ahh this thread reminds me why I love audio... trying to find objective methods to satiate unobjective means...

[James Romeyn]

Apologies if this is irrelevent.  

In the late '80s or early '90s Peter McGrath brought two software sources into the CES booth at which I was working.  He recorded the original excellent source software, a huge orchestra with matching dynamics & musical content.  

Playback included a Sony CDP707ES CD player (or its immediate succesor), with its coaxial digital output going into a top echelon DAC of that era (probably Theta).  McGrath brought a portable DAT with the original master tape & the CD he mastered in the most direct method possible at the time.

We had the interesting opportunity to compare the DAT to the CD in a treated room on a system with low distortion & huge bass & dynamic capacity.  The DAT sounded so much better that it could pass as not only a different recording, but an entirely different performance.  Really.  Everyone present agreed on this.  

Is modern CD jitter & error correction technology improved now to the point that there would be no audible differences if the above test was repeated on modern playback gear?

[clarkjohnsen]

We had the interesting opportunity to compare the DAT to the CD in a treated room on a system with low distortion & huge bass & dynamic capacity. The DAT sounded so much better that it could pass as not only a different recording, but an entirely different performance. Really. Everyone present agreed on this.

Of course they did! I heard him do the same thing in the VMPS room, long ago. I believe it was the first time Peter himself had heard the phenomenon.

The good news is, much has been discovered, just recently, and I shall soon be publishing a column on it, stay tuned.

clark

[Marbles]

Scott and Clark, how did your listening session go?

[ehider]

I'm a little late to this thread, but here is some of my experience about this subject that I investigated about 18 months ago: I have done extensive true blind listening tests between burned and production CD's and have been able to identify correctly each 100% of the time. Additionally, I was able to identify five different CD blanks from each other too with 100% accuracy .

Last year I went on a quest to try to find some logical explanation all over the internet about what was happening to make these copies sound better than the originals (on some other audio circles ). What I found was a complete and utter dis-array of engineering opinions which did not satisfy my findings! Unfortunately at this point in time I am still not willing to accept ANY of the "engineering explanations" as concrete reasons to why any CD blank, burner, software or computer is musically superior in it's format of burning better sounding copies. I've heard both great and horrible copies from many burning formats from different CD roms and the like. The same goes for stand alone burners. At times it almost seems random .

Here are the findings I have found that hold true 100% of the time though   in true double blind testing mind you:

1. Mitsui CD rom blanks seem to produce the most spacious sound.
2. Black CD roms (the goo side black that is) also seem to be simliar in performance to Mitsui
3. There is no copying format on computers that is consistent in great sounding copies if you have a different burner or computer than another computer's. Some great sounding copies with one computer end up sounding meager on another brand of computer if it has a different drive mechanism, motherboard or is different in any way from the other i.e. it seems to be more than "just the software" or the cd blank that makes the better sounding copy.
4. Stand alone burners (CD-R "audio") seem to do a better, more consistent job of always creating a better sounding copy i.e. there has been less "bad copies" I've experienced than better from these.
5. Up to this point I've had the best experience in making copies from Pioneer stand alone CD-R audio burners, in particular the PD-W739.

Lastly, for those who don't hear any differences between copies and originals I seriously think their systems or ears are not focused on what the largest difference can be when comparing great copies to originals. The first problem lies in the concept that their copy is a better sounding example bacause it was copied using "XYZ software on a XYZ burner...". What if that copy isn't really better though?

Once you do find a way to create better sounding CD copies here are some of the outstanding differences I have found: there is typically a subtle difference in spatial depth and sustain and/or decay of anything that has excellent overtones. It is more audiable in well recorded high frequncies than anything else. A well recording triangle or cymbal that has many harmonics is one of the easiest differences to dicern (provided the copy is actually better). Another hard to detect but somewhat noticable difference is in the area of fluidity or pace. It's a very hard difference to describe and I have been part of listening tests where many other audiophiles could not detect this difference (thankfully I and two others where able to identify the "better sounding" copy each and every time in a double blind test while others just looked at us and wondered what the hell we were hearing that was different) .

Welcome to the quagmire

[kfr01]

http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq04.html#S4-18

Some very interesting stuff here.  

It really bolsters the merits of the EAC + FLAC method of playing audio, imo.

[kfr01]

See also:

http://stereophile.com/features/368/

[miklorsmith]

ehider - my research gave me the same gobbledygook you got.  Well, there isn't even consensus of superiority, I guess it would be too much to ask for a uniform answer.

I didn't do the DBT you did, nor have I done careful comparisons between blanks.  But, Taiyo Yuden, Mitsui Gold, Maxell Pro or Music (Taiyo Yuden), and Memorex Blacks have all given me good results.  The Mitsuis have a supposed "archival" lifespan but cost at least $.85 a piece while the Memorexes are cheap at about $.45 a piece but might only last a few years.  None of mine have crapped out, but keep your .wav's (or flacs).

And, I agree with your assessment of sonics.  I've had similar results in different systems as long as they resolve reasonably well.  Treble transients Are the easiest element to pick out, making original CD's sound tizzy and unnatural by comparison.  All elements benefit by sharpened focus though.

[ScottMayo]

Scott and Clark, how did your listening session go?

We had a good time. He liked the RM/x, hated the hardware I had behind it, and we experimented with some toys. Clark can comment from his own ears, but what I got was:

Power cord: a $1200 PC on my preamp sounded identical to the stock PC.

Disc cleaner: a two part wash, which made an audible difference to one of my disks (and one that looked pretty clean to start).

CD copier: No difference whatsoever, good or bad. This surprised me - I literally could not tell the disks apart, which meant it was a good bit copy. If you want your disks copied well, ask Clark about the device he was using. I don't know what to tell you if you want them to sound better, but it did not happen here.

One caveat on the comparison there - Clark has some sort of issue with using female vocalists in comparisons. They are my usual mainstay for critical listening - personally, I think the male ear is wired to pick up every single nuance of the female voice, so it's perfect for testing. (Really, that's the only reason for my Norah Jones CD. It has nothing to do with her fingernails-down-my-back, smoky, innocence-on-the-edge-of-sex-kitten delivery.)

So I used Dire Straights instead, relying on the grit in Knopfer's voice to give away any changes. (Dire Straights is great for picking out changes in gear.) Nothing showed up.

Shielding paper: paper with embedded metal strips, meant to go between components, presumably intended to eliminate interference between them. (I say "presumably" because Clark's take on all this stuff was that it doesn't matter how it worked or what it did, as long as you got a change you liked. He makes no "how" claims whatsoever.)

Anyway, no difference; given that both components were in metal, grounded boxes anyway it's hard to image what the paper could have eliminated. There was also no difference found when physically separating components 12" apart, with stacks of books.

He had some extremely nifty devices, to slip under components and isolate them from vibration and movement. However, we only used this under his CD duplicator, so I can't tell you how helpful they might have been. But they LOOKED cool, and if you put a brick on top of them and tapped the brick, it would oscillate slowly for seconds at a time, so it contained a very low friction pivot. If I ever own a component that I want decoupled from, say, seismic motion, these are the puppies. Clark can tell you who makes 'em.

I actually held an Intelligent Chip in my hand, but the experiment I had in mind would have consumed all the "charges", so we put it aside. However, I concluded that the chip wasn't large enough (they are tiny!) to hold enough power to allow them to read any disc information straight through the metal of a CD player case, so it's impossible for them to recognise disks they've already treated (as the manufacturer claims) - let alone read and rewrite a CD in any way, shape or form. So apparently, they have ESP. In which case, I hope it wasn't offended by what I was thinking when I looked at it.

Bottom line, I can't strongly recommend the advantages of CD copying if you own a modWright Denon 2900, because it didn't seem to make any difference at all. But the two part cleaning goo he used on the CDs seemed to be good stuff, better than the results I get with off-the-shelf alcohol.

So it was fun, but no one's world changed.

[miklorsmith]

Thanks for being open-minded enough to consider the stuff, Scott.  If it didn't work for you, you can move on.  And, now you have direct experience to go along with your theory.