Not in our current patent system, no.
Poynton, I can 100% guarantee you that there's no polyaniline in CDs.
Hugo, with this you only test data integrity of the medium during the readout with the PC's CD drive used.I'm no expert in DBT but here's how I would do the test.
Rip a good quality CD with a properly configured copy of EAC and write down the CRC.
'Demagnetize' or whatever the device claims to do the same CD and repeat above action.
If both CRC's match, nothing changed with the CD.
If not, turn the 'Cook' button a little lower. (If there is one, hint...)
(Might have been mentioned before, I admit I only responded quickly by looking at the thread title and a diagonal read)
To test if there is possible change in sound you must look at the analog (and/or digital) output of the CDP actually used for playback and check if there is a systematic difference beyond the usual variation from playback to playback and of course a precondition is that the output stream is always bitidentical. In case of the digital output this would be structural change in the jitter behaviour of the output. Once there is a detectable (=measurable) systematic difference then comes the hard part : is it signifcant enough to be audible (in your system)?
Klaus
Last edited:
In any case (didn't read the patent) I presume he claims the device does change 'something' to the CD. So a simple CRC test should reveal even a 1 bit change.
KSTR:
Not valid IMO. Once you enter the analogue domain, a myriad of parameters will determine what you hear. Temperature of the devices, humidity, listening condition and last but not least: If one gets picky on micro details, no problem. My hairs in my ear grow constantly and the second listening session will be different from the first because those tiny hairs will now be a fraction of a millimetre longer.
There, impossible to compare. Prove me wrong.
Then it's unclear what you were trying to convey. You cited and linked to two articles about polyaniline. So, honestly, I'm mystified- what were you trying to say?
The plastics used for CDs (along with the other 99.99999% of plastics out there) in fact are not magnetic. Period. So the poo-poo can continue. Polycarbonate and COCs (the transparent materials used to make CDs) are neither magnetic nor conductive. So, no, there's no basis whatever for "demagnetizing" of polycarbonates or COCs.
As I said before, polyaniline is an anomaly, thus the articles you cited- it's also electrically conductive in several of its forms. And as I also said before, there is NO polyaniline in CDs, nor in any other consumer products I'm aware of. It's been used in some very specialized defense applications, but not in consumer products. I have half a dozen patents on some forms and applications of that material, was a co-author on the foundational paper in 1985 (along with Nobel Laureate Alan MacDiarmid) demonstrating its structure and electromagnetic properties, and have most recently collaborated with the UCLA nanomaterials group to develop nanoparticulate polyaniline as an anticorrosion coating. So I have some small familiarity with the material and the context.
No need to prove something wrong what just is not applicable. Looks like we have a small misunderstanding here, with inspecting the analog output I meant the electrical output of the CDP (sound at listening pos is completely futile, I fully agree, far too many variable involved). I'm aware that such a test will be very sophisticated in most any aspect one could think of. Could easily be enough for a full blown thesis to get your academic degree, peer reviewied and all).KSTR:
Not valid IMO. Once you enter the analogue domain, a myriad of parameters will determine what you hear. Temperature of the devices, humidity, listening condition and last but not least: If one gets picky on micro details, no problem. My hairs in my ear grow constantly and the second listening session will be different from the first because those tiny hairs will now be a fraction of a millimetre longer.
There, impossible to compare. Prove me wrong.
One thing seems clear to me : IF a CDP actually changes sound after media treatment while still outputting bitidentical data, then that CDP has problem (clock and data line jitter right at the DAC chip, modulated supplies and/or reference voltages, again at the DAC chip and anything thereafter, etc). Hence, IF such a media treatment device actually betters the performance I have no problem to call that a liable option for the end user, why not? Needless to say that I'm personally very very sceptic about those devices and other "voodoo" gear, but who am am to judge...
Klaus
So what? Use some scaling- what's the maximum field strength that a few micron-thick aluminization can hold? After marveling at how tiny that number is, use the inverse square law to see how much tinier yet the effect would be, even if you COULD actually get the aluminum to that minuscule field strength with anything short of a superconductive magnet.
This ain't a SQUID, it's a CD player. We're talking six orders of magnitude less magnetism than the magnetic field from the Earth. If that's significant, turn your CD player 0.0001 degrees. Remember, paramagnetic materials ONLY have that minuscule amount of magnetism when a large external magnetic field is applied to them- no enormous magnet, no magnetism. You're not mounting a CD player in a superconducting magnet, are you?
Disregarding SY's post, even if the aluminum was magnetized, what exactly would be influenced by this field?
And which way would the polarity be? Flip the disc, to switch poles or spinning poles, like a motor.
Either way, the clock is not derived from the pit edges nor does even the cheapest player exhibit read errors.
I am not saying that the amount of magnetism will affect anything, just pointing out that the blanket statement that a CD has nothing magnetic in it is a false statement. SY's analysis indicates that it is probably not large enuff to have any affect (but not a proof).
I am trying to stimulate discussion of possible mechanisms, and why they will or will not affect things. I do not have a position on these devices but i would like to see a clear & intelligent discussion of why or why-not.
For instance, we can dismiss the bits-is-bits, because we are dealing with an analog representation that could be misinterpreted, Here is an image of idea, practical ideal, and something more typical in a cheap CD player (maybe they are even worse in really cheap players -- anyone have some real world eye-pattern captures they can post?)
dave
I am trying to stimulate discussion of possible mechanisms, and why they will or will not affect things. I do not have a position on these devices but i would like to see a clear & intelligent discussion of why or why-not.
For instance, we can dismiss the bits-is-bits, because we are dealing with an analog representation that could be misinterpreted, Here is an image of idea, practical ideal, and something more typical in a cheap CD player (maybe they are even worse in really cheap players -- anyone have some real world eye-pattern captures they can post?)
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
dave
I don't know how much weight you want to give to anything IAR has to say, but it is an interesting read: Page Title
dave
dave
That article? Zero. A mix of misinterpretation, unsupported assertion, self-serving promotion, and a total lack of evidence. Par for the course in audio magazines, sadly. And irrelevant to the whole demagnetization issue, which is total horsepuckey. Repeat slowly after me: "Polycarbonate is not magnetizable. Aluminum is not magnetizable." Say it again.
Here's a list of all the controlled listening tests that show a difference when these pataphysical nostrums are used:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hmmm.
Posted by planet10 -
That is an interesting drawing, but we are not talking about the output to a DAC, which needs cleaning up. We are talking about reading info in pits, where the timing and wave shape are defined by the clock/PLL and the ICs on the board. Who cares what the waveform of the disc looks like, as long as it is intelligible and clockable?
Earlier I argued it shouldn't alter the jitter and you said you didn't think it would either and that's not what you were talking about.
Then SY pointed out the data reliability of ALL cd drives with no counter argument from you.
So... if data integrity and jitter are not issues here, what exactly are you improving?
That is an interesting drawing, but we are not talking about the output to a DAC, which needs cleaning up. We are talking about reading info in pits, where the timing and wave shape are defined by the clock/PLL and the ICs on the board. Who cares what the waveform of the disc looks like, as long as it is intelligible and clockable?
Earlier I argued it shouldn't alter the jitter and you said you didn't think it would either and that's not what you were talking about.
Then SY pointed out the data reliability of ALL cd drives with no counter argument from you.
So... if data integrity and jitter are not issues here, what exactly are you improving?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.