Audio Myths
Feb 20, 2010 5:36:47 GMT
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2010 5:36:47 GMT
Joined: 11/28/2007 .:. Offline .:. Comments: 5501
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 19:25 — The Computer Audiophile... Interesting to say "we
Interesting to say "we report, you decide." It appears like a decision has been made and that decision has been reported. One that is obviously incorrect is what's called "The CD Treatment Lie."
"[The CD's] tiny indentations do not correspond to analog waveforms but merely carry a numerical code made up of 0's and l's. Those 0's and l's cannot be made "better" (or "worse," for that matter) the way the undulations of an LP groove can sometimes be made more smoothly trackable. They are read as either 0's or l's, and that's that. ... Just say no to CD treatments, from green markers to spray-ons and rub-ons. The idiophiles who claim to hear the improvement can never, never identify the treated CD blind."
Some CD treatments clearly effect the way the servo / laser reads the data from a disc. Many treatments force the servo to move back and forth at a very high pace that produces huge jitter. These treatments produce objective measurable differences. I've completed blind listening tests with discs containing treatments and discs created with different materials. The sonic difference was pretty easy to identify and I did identify each treatment 100% of the time. I'm not saying I liked the sound or that the sound was better with treatments. I am saying CD treatments produce an audible difference.
__________________
Chris Connaker
Founder
Computer Audiophile
www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Audio-MYTHS
COMMENT
You can safely bet your left one, that he did NOT compare the checksums before and after!
Chris Connaker is the founder of Computer Audiophile, but it's interesting that when I tried to say similar as a member, he ridiculed me. So now the differences are readily measurable ?
Yeah, right !
Alex
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 19:25 — The Computer Audiophile... Interesting to say "we
Interesting to say "we report, you decide." It appears like a decision has been made and that decision has been reported. One that is obviously incorrect is what's called "The CD Treatment Lie."
"[The CD's] tiny indentations do not correspond to analog waveforms but merely carry a numerical code made up of 0's and l's. Those 0's and l's cannot be made "better" (or "worse," for that matter) the way the undulations of an LP groove can sometimes be made more smoothly trackable. They are read as either 0's or l's, and that's that. ... Just say no to CD treatments, from green markers to spray-ons and rub-ons. The idiophiles who claim to hear the improvement can never, never identify the treated CD blind."
Some CD treatments clearly effect the way the servo / laser reads the data from a disc. Many treatments force the servo to move back and forth at a very high pace that produces huge jitter. These treatments produce objective measurable differences. I've completed blind listening tests with discs containing treatments and discs created with different materials. The sonic difference was pretty easy to identify and I did identify each treatment 100% of the time. I'm not saying I liked the sound or that the sound was better with treatments. I am saying CD treatments produce an audible difference.
__________________
Chris Connaker
Founder
Computer Audiophile
www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Audio-MYTHS
COMMENT
You can safely bet your left one, that he did NOT compare the checksums before and after!
Chris Connaker is the founder of Computer Audiophile, but it's interesting that when I tried to say similar as a member, he ridiculed me. So now the differences are readily measurable ?
Yeah, right !
Alex