Easy there Frank. I am seeing vivid pictures of geewhizbang experimenting with a towel on the muting transistors and proving you wrong.
And the digital datastream is probably fine as far as the bits are involved but i am unaware of anyone measuring the effects of vibration on jitter.
And how is getting a CD really cold going to change it in any way that is meaningful?
Now we have gone from rather doubtful to extreme lunacy. The CD is a piece of clear plastic with a metal film on it. The metal film has holes in it. Freezing it isn't going to change the holes or the metal or the plastic in any way whatsoever. If anything, it could cause some stresses to build up in the metal film and the plastic (since the plastic and metal have different coefficients of expansion) and actually cause some pits to get worse, or a pattern of hairline cracks in the plastic but I can't image any of these changes being beneficial.
Now we have gone from rather doubtful to extreme lunacy. The CD is a piece of clear plastic with a metal film on it. The metal film has holes in it. Freezing it isn't going to change the holes or the metal or the plastic in any way whatsoever. If anything, it could cause some stresses to build up in the metal film and the plastic (since the plastic and metal have different coefficients of expansion) and actually cause some pits to get worse, or a pattern of hairline cracks in the plastic but I can't image any of these changes being beneficial.
Folks, I can't address every comment and criticism concerning me, but let me state my position:
First, I have been in this business a long time, about 40 years in the serious study of audio. My colleagues are and were: Paul Klipsch, Richard Heyser, Matti Otala, Walt Jung, Michael Gerzon, John Meyer, Dick Marsh, Dr Hawksford, etc, etc. This means that have I talked extensively with, shared dinner with, drank with, visited, and was visited by, worked on research with, wrote papers, and was continually on the phone with, etc, etc. This has nothing to do with photo ops, or a polite handshake. We still meet together and talk on the phone when convenient.
These people I have learned from, and they from me.
SY, I disagree with you about Michael Gerzon. He was at least as far out as anything that you have ever heard from me. He, wisely, just didn't put it into print. IF you don't believe me, ask Dr. Peter Craven, his associate. Peter Craven is still with us, and has recently put some important info, that I'm sure he developed with Michael Gerzon in a recent AES journal.
The uncertainy of frequency vs time measurement was first told to me by the late Richard Heyser in the late '60's. Far out stuff, then. It was refreshing for me to see it in Michael Gerzon's article, last night and helps me better understand Heisenberg's explanation in quantum theory.
Jan, I'm sorry that I push your buttons when I mention my colleagues, but they know better than you appear to know about audio problems. Hang with Steve Eddy if you must.
First, I have been in this business a long time, about 40 years in the serious study of audio. My colleagues are and were: Paul Klipsch, Richard Heyser, Matti Otala, Walt Jung, Michael Gerzon, John Meyer, Dick Marsh, Dr Hawksford, etc, etc. This means that have I talked extensively with, shared dinner with, drank with, visited, and was visited by, worked on research with, wrote papers, and was continually on the phone with, etc, etc. This has nothing to do with photo ops, or a polite handshake. We still meet together and talk on the phone when convenient.
These people I have learned from, and they from me.
SY, I disagree with you about Michael Gerzon. He was at least as far out as anything that you have ever heard from me. He, wisely, just didn't put it into print. IF you don't believe me, ask Dr. Peter Craven, his associate. Peter Craven is still with us, and has recently put some important info, that I'm sure he developed with Michael Gerzon in a recent AES journal.
The uncertainy of frequency vs time measurement was first told to me by the late Richard Heyser in the late '60's. Far out stuff, then. It was refreshing for me to see it in Michael Gerzon's article, last night and helps me better understand Heisenberg's explanation in quantum theory.
Jan, I'm sorry that I push your buttons when I mention my colleagues, but they know better than you appear to know about audio problems. Hang with Steve Eddy if you must.
john curl said:
John, your post brings up certain themes appearing earlier in this thread. I personally wish more people published their speculations as I think speculating or experimenting with "foolish" things or ideas is one important means by which progress in science or audio is made. I know in my own line of work I'll get a hunch about something and say "It's this" then "It's this" then "It's this" ... I'll know when I hit upon the right answer, if I do, and usually only after being so many degrees of wrong in searching for it. In hindsight, I'll better see the original intuition for what it was. Einstein, according to David Bohm, had deep intuitions he felt at times helpless to articulate.
The vibration is not going to change how bits are read. So they cannot have ANYTHING to do with jitter.
Hi,
Ah?
Not quite ....
But first let's have a look how CDs are or at least can be made. Then I'd suggest we look at what cryogenic treatment can do and then we may just as well put ourselves into the delusion cooler....
CD MANUFACTURING.
COOL STUFF.
Cheers,😉
Ah?
Not quite ....
But first let's have a look how CDs are or at least can be made. Then I'd suggest we look at what cryogenic treatment can do and then we may just as well put ourselves into the delusion cooler....
CD MANUFACTURING.
COOL STUFF.
Cheers,😉
Cryogenics a well established science? Well, yes, but not to the extent many are convinced. To be more clear, scientists are aware of the effects and uses of extreme cooling and reheating, but the "science" of cryogenically treating everything from cables to outlets to speakers to keychains to automotive valve-stems to hood ornaments looking for additional performance is, like so many things in "high-end" audio, as much about borderline-fradulent profit driven psudeoscience than about real, fact supported, logical cause and effect. There are some interesting and beneficial effects of cryogenic treatment to a great many things, but it gets beyond ridiculous when people start treating their socks looking for longer life (just made that up... but a google search might once again prove that fact is stranger than fiction). It reminds me a bit of Q-Ray bracelets and structured water.
Treated cylinders or rings? Sure. Gunbarells? Why not. Cables? You're pushing it. CD's? Why not just go for the green market, or put smiley face stickers under all the toilet lids in the house (it works... really, I promise).
SY - why is it crossing the border to call JC's chest thumping just what it is? After I made a plea to keep arguments to the facts and theories, not who know's who and who's published what, he responded by the longest name-dropping string yet in this monster thread. What point does that serve... to anyone?
Treated cylinders or rings? Sure. Gunbarells? Why not. Cables? You're pushing it. CD's? Why not just go for the green market, or put smiley face stickers under all the toilet lids in the house (it works... really, I promise).
SY - why is it crossing the border to call JC's chest thumping just what it is? After I made a plea to keep arguments to the facts and theories, not who know's who and who's published what, he responded by the longest name-dropping string yet in this monster thread. What point does that serve... to anyone?
There was a lot of hand-waving in the article about cryo-cooling and heavy use of the language of science, but not one shred of actual evidence other than the assertion of more airiness of sound.
First of all, there are several suspect things about this:
1. Heat treatment is precisely that. It involves getting the item rather hot first. In the case of steel, small impurities in the metal become soluable and you get recrystallization of the material.
2. The item is then cooled. The rate at which it is cooled is the issue here, which is why cryogenic heat treatment methods may be used for very exotic components. The idea is to cool the item so rapidly that there isn't time for the dissolved alloying agents to go out of solution, and/or to control the particle size when they do.
3. The change in properties is a combination of two things. In the case of steel and iron, you get various crystalline structures, such as "Martensite" which is EXTREMELY hard, very brittle. If you do the cooling very rapidly (and the carbon content of the steel is fairly high) you get almost pure martensite, and you have made hardened steel. But even though it is extremely hard, it is very brittle. This is why steel files will often break when they fall hard on the floor. This would never happen with more normal steel, where the heat treatment is done gradually to produce small occlusions of martensite in a softer matrix of other crystal types.
The hard crystals make the steel stronger because they prevent the soft crystals from slipping on each other so much.
The other reason for wanting rapid cooling is that some materials get much smaller occlusions, and thus have a better characteristics when they are very rapidly cooled.
*****
The end result of all of this is that your cryogenic treatment of CDs and cables and tubes could hardly make a difference because they aren't being sufficiently heated in the first place. You have to get the item warm enough, like around 800 F or much higher to recrystallize the item in the first place. Without the prior application of heat, very, very, few if any changes can occur. For most materials that are solid at room temperature, lowering the temperature further it not going to make any significant changes in their crystalline structure, especially after you warm them back up.
A lot of things DO get very, very brittle at cold temperatures. With brittle items such as glass or plastic, it is possible that you get a network of fine cracks in such items but it is highly unlikely that you could hear any of these things or that these changes would be beneficial.
First of all, there are several suspect things about this:
1. Heat treatment is precisely that. It involves getting the item rather hot first. In the case of steel, small impurities in the metal become soluable and you get recrystallization of the material.
2. The item is then cooled. The rate at which it is cooled is the issue here, which is why cryogenic heat treatment methods may be used for very exotic components. The idea is to cool the item so rapidly that there isn't time for the dissolved alloying agents to go out of solution, and/or to control the particle size when they do.
3. The change in properties is a combination of two things. In the case of steel and iron, you get various crystalline structures, such as "Martensite" which is EXTREMELY hard, very brittle. If you do the cooling very rapidly (and the carbon content of the steel is fairly high) you get almost pure martensite, and you have made hardened steel. But even though it is extremely hard, it is very brittle. This is why steel files will often break when they fall hard on the floor. This would never happen with more normal steel, where the heat treatment is done gradually to produce small occlusions of martensite in a softer matrix of other crystal types.
The hard crystals make the steel stronger because they prevent the soft crystals from slipping on each other so much.
The other reason for wanting rapid cooling is that some materials get much smaller occlusions, and thus have a better characteristics when they are very rapidly cooled.
*****
The end result of all of this is that your cryogenic treatment of CDs and cables and tubes could hardly make a difference because they aren't being sufficiently heated in the first place. You have to get the item warm enough, like around 800 F or much higher to recrystallize the item in the first place. Without the prior application of heat, very, very, few if any changes can occur. For most materials that are solid at room temperature, lowering the temperature further it not going to make any significant changes in their crystalline structure, especially after you warm them back up.
A lot of things DO get very, very brittle at cold temperatures. With brittle items such as glass or plastic, it is possible that you get a network of fine cracks in such items but it is highly unlikely that you could hear any of these things or that these changes would be beneficial.
Folks, I'm foolish to write this, but here goes: My audio world is one of growth and experimentation. If I can learn from someone else, I will, therefore I cultivate relationships with interesting people in order to learn and grow. Many of you don't seem to have the same experience. This is unfortunate. What I could say that might be useful is lost in the adversity shown to me. Teach me something, rather than tell me what is impossible, because of your opinion on the subject.
john curl said:
It's not a one-way street, John.
It's through the legitimate questioning and challenging of claims and theories that we whittle our way to the truth. You don't learn by swallowing without question whatever someone says that happens to appeal to your particular beliefs and biases. You don't learn by isolating yourself within some mutual admiration society with everyone slapping everyone else's backs telling each other how great they are and how mean and nasty all those "other" people are.
That seems to be the world you wish to try and create for yourself given the hostile way in which you lash out at anyone who dares to legitimately question or challenge the claims made by yourself and/or the other members of your mutual admiration society.
se
analog_sa said:
Well, tap the oscillator and look at the produced clock/jitter - it rings like the Mary bells ;-)
So there is an abolute cause for acoustic feedback in a CD system.
/
- Status
- Not open for further replies.