It's a little time consuming, but not really difficult. I mean, if I can figure it out and get repeatable results, it can't be that difficult. 😛
Hi Scott,
Nothing to be sorry about. I'm wrong reasonably often no matter how strong my intent is to be factually correct.
Any measure of data integrity is too difficult to define. Will you accept figures from new, no defects discs? Or, to be applicable to anyone, will you want to define a disc that has some metric of defects present. Can an average be arrived at for a typical disc played say, 5 times with reasonable care be arrived at (no sneezes 🙂 )? So is it the "everything is perfect" number you want, or some number that takes into account a condition of the average disc with careful use? The second situation would exercise the error correction, giving you a more useful idea of how effective it is.
For music, Philips test sample 5 and 5A are perfect CDs, and CDs with known error causing defects. But the first time you use them they pick up more errors simply because they are handled. For my purposes, a Pierre Verany defect disc using specific tracks would be a far better controlled test sample as the defects are actually stamped in before the top layer goes on. The Philips discs are merely printed on with the variable nature of that process. I really wish I could still buy the Pierre Verany double disc. The defect disc uses a 500 Hz tone throughout. That makes it far easier to detect defects.
For Data discs, I have no idea what standard test discs there would be. Mark should chime in here with that information.
Best, Chris
Nothing to be sorry about. I'm wrong reasonably often no matter how strong my intent is to be factually correct.
Any measure of data integrity is too difficult to define. Will you accept figures from new, no defects discs? Or, to be applicable to anyone, will you want to define a disc that has some metric of defects present. Can an average be arrived at for a typical disc played say, 5 times with reasonable care be arrived at (no sneezes 🙂 )? So is it the "everything is perfect" number you want, or some number that takes into account a condition of the average disc with careful use? The second situation would exercise the error correction, giving you a more useful idea of how effective it is.
For music, Philips test sample 5 and 5A are perfect CDs, and CDs with known error causing defects. But the first time you use them they pick up more errors simply because they are handled. For my purposes, a Pierre Verany defect disc using specific tracks would be a far better controlled test sample as the defects are actually stamped in before the top layer goes on. The Philips discs are merely printed on with the variable nature of that process. I really wish I could still buy the Pierre Verany double disc. The defect disc uses a 500 Hz tone throughout. That makes it far easier to detect defects.
For Data discs, I have no idea what standard test discs there would be. Mark should chime in here with that information.
Best, Chris
'Peek' is not a neutral word. Sighted listening or open listening would be the more neutral expressions.
It is just like other expressions that SY uses to attempt to impugn me here, along with many others.
It is just like other expressions that SY uses to attempt to impugn me here, along with many others.
Neutral or not, I don't understand how it could skew the results of a blind test. You either know what you are listening to, or you do not. Can someone tell the difference without either seeing the DUT or being told what it is?
John, I find it ironic that you complain about the neutrality of 'peek' while at the same time using the expression 'ears only' in the most misleading way possible!
Jan
So, both sides are polarized, but mostly each side sees that the other side is biased and don't see their own bias? Or they feel their bias and polarization is justified because the other side is biased and polarized? It seems a lot like politics and religion, in those respects.
If expecting fact-claims to be backed up with valid data using basic controls is "biased," I cheerfully admit to bias.
The tone of discourse and some word choices are similar to what happens religion and politics. Things tend to escalate until each side sees the other side as evil. When it becomes a case of good against evil, any tactic is felt to be justified. Just like religion and politics.
Mark: careful you are getting close to the forum rules on what you cannot discuss.
John and SY have been doing this for nearly a decade now, possibly longer. I think its all conditioned response now 🙂
John and SY have been doing this for nearly a decade now, possibly longer. I think its all conditioned response now 🙂
Mark, I am not looking to start a polemic, but do you feel my post is biased? If so, in what way?
Jan
Not extremely biased. I don't think the expression ears only was literally used in the most misleading way possible, particularly with the exclamation emphasis. No apparent bias with the underlying point that JC is not unbiased himself.
Last edited:
One does not have to be unbiased to be correct. Bias can get in the way, but it doesn't preclude being correct.
- We hear only with our ears, but we perceive with our complete brains.
- Any input to the brain is used to come up with a perception, "good or bad".
- Logic then dictates that for the "correct" perception, you ONLY can use ears.
Yes, those are two different things. We could talk more about what is means to deem something correct, but there would probably be differing opinions about it. If there is a social tendency for things to devolve into increasing disagreement, it could easily happen with that subject too. Maybe it would suffice to say that it might be better to be correct without including bias bundled along with it.
Aside: At one time I received training on how to write up or document personnel problems at work. The advice given was to leave out all adjectives. Something written that way reads as statements of facts, without embedded opinions from the writer. The reader is left to form an independent judgment about what the facts show.
Aside: At one time I received training on how to write up or document personnel problems at work. The advice given was to leave out all adjectives. Something written that way reads as statements of facts, without embedded opinions from the writer. The reader is left to form an independent judgment about what the facts show.
Even if "we understand" would be true, using the term "ears only" is nevertheless an example of the wondering about the meaning of english words as described by jan.didden.
I doubt the "we understand" claim because, if one doesn´t take it literally he would not believe:
" If James can hear it and it's obvious to him, how could he fail to hear it blind? He already knows what to listen for."
Truth facts and evidence all words that are sadly un-applicable to some areas of the audiophile hobby, because many wont question their beliefs that perception is fallible and so more rigorous testing is required... to confirm differences. When I started doing even rudimentary double blind testing I realised that many differences I had heard were due to expectation bias and the fact that I had not done "ears only" testing so could see the differences... My world was changed forever.
If the GEB (subjective golden ears brigade) guys leave out adjectives there would not be a lot to document...🙂
If the GEB (subjective golden ears brigade) guys leave out adjectives there would not be a lot to document...🙂
Well I don't know - if you repeatedly, clearly and admittedly use 'ears only' when you actually mean: using all senses at disposal at the time, including reputation, peer opinion, price, what have you, I don't see how you can be more misleading than that. Sometimes you need to call a cat a cat.
Jan
No need for Data test discs. Think of a CD-ROM as a CD-DA with an additional layer or error correction and a few format bits/bytes altered. They have the same pit/land, EFM and CIRC. You can test this by playing a Rom in a CD-Player. The player will read the lead-in and display a single track and play-time. Press play and the player will just read the pits and process the data. A CD player will have some problems with multi-session, CD-I and CD-VIDEO discs.
The standards force you into producing a disc that doesn't have errors beyond C2 E2.2. Concealment for Audio and the extra CD-ROM error correction are there for the user.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.