hows aboot live and let live?
Here's the deal folks If YOU don't buy into the hype of any given product, don't buy it. If someone else is singing the praises of it then let it go. Whether it's real(proven) or imagined(unproved) the person still believes that there is a difference in the sound of THEIR system. Even if it's all in their head....That's the only place it needs to be. It's their system if they think it sounds better then great for them. The rest of us will fire up PSPICE and go to town trying to improve the circuitry or whatever.
And a note as far as the SHakti stones go it's marketed as a "DOES a billion things" product but pattented as an EMI reducer. www.uspto.gov patent number 5,814,761 if you wanna read it.
If you don't like it don't use it.........If someone else does then good for them too.
Here's the deal folks If YOU don't buy into the hype of any given product, don't buy it. If someone else is singing the praises of it then let it go. Whether it's real(proven) or imagined(unproved) the person still believes that there is a difference in the sound of THEIR system. Even if it's all in their head....That's the only place it needs to be. It's their system if they think it sounds better then great for them. The rest of us will fire up PSPICE and go to town trying to improve the circuitry or whatever.
And a note as far as the SHakti stones go it's marketed as a "DOES a billion things" product but pattented as an EMI reducer. www.uspto.gov patent number 5,814,761 if you wanna read it.
If you don't like it don't use it.........If someone else does then good for them too.
SY said:
Why not? Theoretically, one need only produce measurements showing Shakti effects do not exist.
Sorry, I misphrased myself. I meant to say that CD error correction, when it works, fixes 100% of the errors. And, as some have shown here, reasonably clean disks are usually read in without any uncorrected errors.
A major part of AYW's theories proposes that the sound isolation reduces the CD read errors. And this is what I believe that many here have shown clearly to be a misunderstanding.
A major part of AYW's theories proposes that the sound isolation reduces the CD read errors. And this is what I believe that many here have shown clearly to be a misunderstanding.
Hi,
That should actually be pretty straightforward to prove or disprove.
Remember when Pin 2 (I think) on the DAC is monitored for error counting?
That should be easy enough to hook up for monitoring.
I don't know if that particular pin is still there however. But there are other ways to verify these errors I'm sure.
Other than that I can't see why isolating a CDP from structureborne or airborne vibration wouldn't improve playback and reduce read errors.
If scratched discs already make it harder, even though data is scattered across the medium itself, to read a disc, it seems very plausible that adding vibrational disturbance would make matters even worse.
What I do have strong reservations about is the use of spikes underneath a CD transport; that can't do anything to improve matters for this situation.
Spikey feet aren't necessarily spikes, nor necessarily performing as such though.
You could imagine that spikes can be critically placed underneath a CD transport to drain vibrational energy from within the player away into the surface it's sitting on.
Newton's law on action and counteraction isn't always as clear cut as it appears on the surface.
Cheers, 😉
That should actually be pretty straightforward to prove or disprove.
Remember when Pin 2 (I think) on the DAC is monitored for error counting?
That should be easy enough to hook up for monitoring.
I don't know if that particular pin is still there however. But there are other ways to verify these errors I'm sure.
Other than that I can't see why isolating a CDP from structureborne or airborne vibration wouldn't improve playback and reduce read errors.
If scratched discs already make it harder, even though data is scattered across the medium itself, to read a disc, it seems very plausible that adding vibrational disturbance would make matters even worse.
What I do have strong reservations about is the use of spikes underneath a CD transport; that can't do anything to improve matters for this situation.
Spikey feet aren't necessarily spikes, nor necessarily performing as such though.
You could imagine that spikes can be critically placed underneath a CD transport to drain vibrational energy from within the player away into the surface it's sitting on.
Newton's law on action and counteraction isn't always as clear cut as it appears on the surface.
Cheers, 😉
serengetiplains said:
You can't do that. You can only show that in THIS setup, THIS time you saw no effect. Now, after doing things again and again and fitting your data into a pattern with other well-established data, you can get an arbitrarily high degree of confidence that the stones aren't doing anything. But all it takes is ONE guy who can hear their effect in a controlled test and WHOOF, everything you know is wrong.
To use a different example, let's consider the charge on an electron. It's unity and it's quantized. Or so we believe. We've measured billions and billions of electrons, looked at millions and millions of spectra, and they all have unity charge. The fundamental tenets of quantum mechanics require this to be true. But... with all that data, we haven't examined EVERY electron in the Universe under all possible conditions (in fact, there's a logical contradiction there because qm also demands that all electrons be indistinguishable).
If someone comes up with a bulletproof demonstration of fractional charge on an electron, he won't be scorned, his work won't be suppressed by the Science Inquisition- on the contrary, he'll get a Nobel. And all of us other folks will now have an incredibly rich new field to work in. We can say that there's pretty much no chance of this happening, but the probability is not zero nor can it be.
But the guy who shows fractional charge on an electron will expect that his experiment will be RIGOROUSLY examined for error.
I still think that a cheap rubber leg would work better than a spike, since the compliance of the rubber (and the consequent thermal heating) would actually absorb energy.
The spikes only make some sense in their original purpose to give a more precise location for speakers on carpet. By pushing thru the nap, and concentrating force, they make for a speaker that is not going to rock as much on its stand.
But on hardwood floors, a rubber or nylon leg would be better, as long as it is reasonably firm. The same thing goes for components on a shelf. A rubber leg will at least damp out some of the vibrations, whereas a solid leg (pointy or not) will simply pass them thru to the item you are trying to protect.
The spikes only make some sense in their original purpose to give a more precise location for speakers on carpet. By pushing thru the nap, and concentrating force, they make for a speaker that is not going to rock as much on its stand.
But on hardwood floors, a rubber or nylon leg would be better, as long as it is reasonably firm. The same thing goes for components on a shelf. A rubber leg will at least damp out some of the vibrations, whereas a solid leg (pointy or not) will simply pass them thru to the item you are trying to protect.
Hi,
That's what most people think and yes, sometimes that would be a good solution.
However, what if I want to use a combination of both properties and use a single spike to give my speaker a firm reference to ground and use 2 or 3 lower Q feet to absorb whatever energy the cabinet is creating through panel flexure?
Have you ever tried to add mass, say a few kilos of lead on top of a speaker cabinet?
The added benefit of the mass causing greater downward pressure and the low Q of lead absorbing a lot of energy and slowly converting it into heat.
One could go into detail on what does what exactly, how and why ans so forth but you'll rarely ever going to find a decent explanation in a product leaflet or on a website...
Nonetheless it still is amazing how much the right combinations of materials can turn an already fine system into something closer to twice its money's worth with little expense other than one's time and some common sense.
You can well imagine that tips and tricks like this raise an eyebrow or two when someone just says do this or that without explaining the causes and effects of the actions or a combination of them.
Same thing for the more esoteric stuff really, it's not because we can't readily explain why and how something would have an effect that it's either impossible or inaudible.
Cheers,😉
That's what most people think and yes, sometimes that would be a good solution.
However, what if I want to use a combination of both properties and use a single spike to give my speaker a firm reference to ground and use 2 or 3 lower Q feet to absorb whatever energy the cabinet is creating through panel flexure?
Have you ever tried to add mass, say a few kilos of lead on top of a speaker cabinet?
The added benefit of the mass causing greater downward pressure and the low Q of lead absorbing a lot of energy and slowly converting it into heat.
One could go into detail on what does what exactly, how and why ans so forth but you'll rarely ever going to find a decent explanation in a product leaflet or on a website...
Nonetheless it still is amazing how much the right combinations of materials can turn an already fine system into something closer to twice its money's worth with little expense other than one's time and some common sense.
You can well imagine that tips and tricks like this raise an eyebrow or two when someone just says do this or that without explaining the causes and effects of the actions or a combination of them.
Same thing for the more esoteric stuff really, it's not because we can't readily explain why and how something would have an effect that it's either impossible or inaudible.
Cheers,😉
Hi,
Who in turn has looked at what Goldmund had done with their TTs etc...
Who in turn had it from Michel Levy and his brother, Pierre Lurne, Jean-Constant Verdier and myself.
Who in turn all had studied " Electronique et Physique Applique" as it was part of our courses at university.
Small world, isn't it?😉
Who in turn has looked at what Goldmund had done with their TTs etc...
Who in turn had it from Michel Levy and his brother, Pierre Lurne, Jean-Constant Verdier and myself.
Who in turn all had studied " Electronique et Physique Applique" as it was part of our courses at university.
Small world, isn't it?😉
A friend bought a cheap sub in the mid 80s from some discount catalog.
It was a 20" x 20" x 15" box, approximately with a downward-firing paper 15" DVC woofer, passively crossed over. The box was made of veneered, 1/2 inch fairly low grade particle board.
It sounded rather boxy, mostly because the box resonated pretty bad. I mentioned that he could fix it by screwing some boards to it to stiffen it up, but he just spent $150 on a huge kewl looking rock (more than what he paid for the sub BTW) and set it on top. It looked rather nice, actually.
The rock rather nicely compressed the particle board and made it a lot more rigid. The sub sounded considerably better with it on top. It still wasn't really audiophile, but not bad for $250.
It was a 20" x 20" x 15" box, approximately with a downward-firing paper 15" DVC woofer, passively crossed over. The box was made of veneered, 1/2 inch fairly low grade particle board.
It sounded rather boxy, mostly because the box resonated pretty bad. I mentioned that he could fix it by screwing some boards to it to stiffen it up, but he just spent $150 on a huge kewl looking rock (more than what he paid for the sub BTW) and set it on top. It looked rather nice, actually.
The rock rather nicely compressed the particle board and made it a lot more rigid. The sub sounded considerably better with it on top. It still wasn't really audiophile, but not bad for $250.
Meitner Bashing?
Bash if you wish, but he still makes arguably the best digital gear in the industry. I'll personally listen.
Bash if you wish, but he still makes arguably the best digital gear in the industry. I'll personally listen.
For my part, I became willing to look closer at Meitner's gear after I learned of his tendency to think outside the tried and true box (as with cryogenics, for instance). That tendency shows an open mind of the type I think bodes well in a realm where measurements sorely lag. I remember when Stereophile began beefing up their measurements of gear they reviewed. These measurements mostly seemed irrelevant to me as they could not, from what I could tell and from reports from the reviewers themselves, indicate the finer forms of distortion that distinguished the gear in question.
Also, as a music lover who has spent considerable hours listening intently to musical recordings---to submerge myself, at times, in the music, and at other times to listen to the gear for shortcomings---I have learned to trust the language of others who report their experiences in that difficult terrain of articulating subtle sonic differences. I'm convinced these sonic differences, call them what you will, are measureable with some theoretical possibility---much like I'm convinced the movement of thought in the brain is measurable within some theoretical possibility. But measuring the most subtle of electrical signals might be like trying to see particles smaller than a photon with a photon.
Also, as a music lover who has spent considerable hours listening intently to musical recordings---to submerge myself, at times, in the music, and at other times to listen to the gear for shortcomings---I have learned to trust the language of others who report their experiences in that difficult terrain of articulating subtle sonic differences. I'm convinced these sonic differences, call them what you will, are measureable with some theoretical possibility---much like I'm convinced the movement of thought in the brain is measurable within some theoretical possibility. But measuring the most subtle of electrical signals might be like trying to see particles smaller than a photon with a photon.
It never occurs to you that nobody ELSE has tried cryogenics because it doesn't make any sense?
That you are falling for an utter gimmick?
That you are falling for an utter gimmick?
Here's all I'm going to say about the cryogenics stuff. From my understanding (i.e. a few TV programs I've seen on it), one of the benefits from cryogenically freezing something in a controlled manner is that once you hit a certain temperature, the atoms "settle" into a more aligned state.
On one program, the reporter said that a disposable razor that had been cryo'd had already lasted him 6 months.
On certain applications, I can certainly see from the perspective listed above on how it would help. However, in terms of a CD being cryo'd and then thawed, I would be HIGHLY suspect of any changes, especially since we've already gone over how the media is read into the buffer, etc.
Obviously, the easy way to "see" if this CD were actually any better would be to analyze two CD's (perhaps ones that were manufactured sequentially) and analyze the material to see what happens to the disc after it's frozen. I'm sure Meitner could have had this done had he wanted to verify any changes in the medium itself. But, instead, he did the same old thing that most of the "tweakers" do, which is to say he did something and that he heard a difference, write it down, and eschew it to everyone, without any rea; evidence to back it up.
On one program, the reporter said that a disposable razor that had been cryo'd had already lasted him 6 months.
On certain applications, I can certainly see from the perspective listed above on how it would help. However, in terms of a CD being cryo'd and then thawed, I would be HIGHLY suspect of any changes, especially since we've already gone over how the media is read into the buffer, etc.
Obviously, the easy way to "see" if this CD were actually any better would be to analyze two CD's (perhaps ones that were manufactured sequentially) and analyze the material to see what happens to the disc after it's frozen. I'm sure Meitner could have had this done had he wanted to verify any changes in the medium itself. But, instead, he did the same old thing that most of the "tweakers" do, which is to say he did something and that he heard a difference, write it down, and eschew it to everyone, without any rea; evidence to back it up.
I HAVE NOT claimed that anywhere here - look back and read you are confusing me with someone else.
By definition though only correctable errors can be fixed, which means uncorrectable ones aren't. Linear interpolation IS NOT recovering the original data on the disc, although short events in isolation may be inaudible.
Andy.
You are claiming that vibration causes lots of little read errors that cannot be fixed by the error correction.
Which others have shown, many times, to not be the case. A clean CD disk is usually read in without any uncorrectable errors, vibration or not.
So if vibration isolation has any of the subtle improvements claimed for it, then tje explanation CANNOT be vibration induced read errors, since the transports of any reasonably good CD player are sufficiently insensitive to vibration that they don't make any uncorrectable errors.
Which makes sense. If a computer can read in data files from a CD disk very reliably without errors, in only follows that a cd player can too, especially since the read speed is much slower than what computers do these days.
The finding that CDs are usually perfectly error corrected also makes the claims of Mr. Meitner about his cryo'ed CDs having less vibrational problems and thus fewer read errors all the more unlikely. There aren't any errors to fix, so why would they sound better?
****
So the only thing that justifies vibration isolation is a possible effect on jitter and microphonic issues with the components. I would suspect that this is being overhyped too, but at least that is possible.
Which others have shown, many times, to not be the case. A clean CD disk is usually read in without any uncorrectable errors, vibration or not.
So if vibration isolation has any of the subtle improvements claimed for it, then tje explanation CANNOT be vibration induced read errors, since the transports of any reasonably good CD player are sufficiently insensitive to vibration that they don't make any uncorrectable errors.
Which makes sense. If a computer can read in data files from a CD disk very reliably without errors, in only follows that a cd player can too, especially since the read speed is much slower than what computers do these days.
The finding that CDs are usually perfectly error corrected also makes the claims of Mr. Meitner about his cryo'ed CDs having less vibrational problems and thus fewer read errors all the more unlikely. There aren't any errors to fix, so why would they sound better?
****
So the only thing that justifies vibration isolation is a possible effect on jitter and microphonic issues with the components. I would suspect that this is being overhyped too, but at least that is possible.
serengetiplains said:
Tom (?),
What made you think that there are, in fact, ' finer forms of distortion that distinguished the gear in question' ? Because the reviewer said so?
Jan Didden
Konnichiwa,
ALW did not claim this. I also did also not claim this.
I merely claimed that it would be a POSSIBLE logical explanation for what another board member claimed to observe and wich you insisted in the most authotarian manner could not have ANY logical and physical reason.
The fact that RHosch's experiments found no correlation does NOT mean that the same effect CANNOT apply under certain circumstances. In addition it was agreed even by "your side" that the process I described MAY happen, it thus qualifies as a repudiation of your silly position of the religious, irrational believe that "there cannot be a logical and physical reason".
And UNUSUALLY it may still MAY be read with uncorrectable errors vibration or not.
You again insist that something CANNOT be. That is a degree of intellectual arrogance that I find staggering.
I believe this particular fallacy has been argued to death many times. The argument resembels that because a sportscar can get around a certain corner at 55MPH any car, truck or other vehicle can. This is counterfactual thinking in its most rarified form or simply complete ignorance of any facts.
Could you provide the reference to that finding? Please do not list RHoschs experiments as he clearly shows that CD's are not usually read 100% Error Free.
Jitter is another issue. This too can have a significant level of influence. And due tho the feedtrough from the Servo Driver supply to the main powersupply for the digital circuitry reduced servo action (less vobration) may very well cause significant differences.
Sayonara
geewhizbang said:
ALW did not claim this. I also did also not claim this.
I merely claimed that it would be a POSSIBLE logical explanation for what another board member claimed to observe and wich you insisted in the most authotarian manner could not have ANY logical and physical reason.
The fact that RHosch's experiments found no correlation does NOT mean that the same effect CANNOT apply under certain circumstances. In addition it was agreed even by "your side" that the process I described MAY happen, it thus qualifies as a repudiation of your silly position of the religious, irrational believe that "there cannot be a logical and physical reason".
geewhizbang said:
And UNUSUALLY it may still MAY be read with uncorrectable errors vibration or not.
geewhizbang said:
You again insist that something CANNOT be. That is a degree of intellectual arrogance that I find staggering.
geewhizbang said:
I believe this particular fallacy has been argued to death many times. The argument resembels that because a sportscar can get around a certain corner at 55MPH any car, truck or other vehicle can. This is counterfactual thinking in its most rarified form or simply complete ignorance of any facts.
geewhizbang said:
Could you provide the reference to that finding? Please do not list RHoschs experiments as he clearly shows that CD's are not usually read 100% Error Free.
geewhizbang said:
Jitter is another issue. This too can have a significant level of influence. And due tho the feedtrough from the Servo Driver supply to the main powersupply for the digital circuitry reduced servo action (less vobration) may very well cause significant differences.
Sayonara
- Status
- Not open for further replies.