Like

Archive through October 12, 2004

 

Silver Member
Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 424
Registered: Apr-04
by using the front preouts
of the nad to the mac. any sound that would come out the front speakers
will not come out of the mac.


Ok, not sure if this is fatigure or stupid girl question. What's the purpose of setting this up if sound doesn't come out of Mac? Or, would this only be the case in surround sound and, in stereo, the Mac would be powering the speakers?
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


Marc - KEF doesn't make any bad speakers. The 104's were the first speaeker KEF made that wasn't a sealed box. It had more efficiency than previous KEF models and, due to the unique bass loading, could take a substantial amount of power with low distortion in the bass. It sounds more "American" than the models that preceeded it but that shouldn't stop anyone from considering it as a good choice.


 

Silver Member
Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 426
Registered: Apr-04
Make that fatigue not fatigure....man, I should go to bed now.
 

Silver Member
Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 427
Registered: Apr-04
Is fatigue right? It looks weird to me right now...
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


Ghia - Yes, I'll be replacing the glass but not right away. I've got to pay for the rest of the room redo and then the house has to be painted. The 6200 will go in the back room, possibly in cabinet where I'll be the only one who sees it. If that happens the glass is not an important item to me until I get the house squared away.



 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1614
Registered: Dec-03
anyways ghia the point of all I mentioned about the mac hookup like that
is so you use the mac amp not the nad to power your front speakers.

that should let you know if an amp "mac or other"
will give you that sound you want for 2 channel
and also work within your surround setup.

this is what i've been trying to get accross as what i've done.

I'm running my h/k reciever out to my tube preamp
then from my tube preamp out to whatever amps i'm running
to a pair of speakers.

now just like your mac has different inputs for things so does my
tube preamp. it has 2 inputs. the denon 2200 has the 5.1 analog outs
plus a 2 channel set. so the 5.1 goes to the reciever
then the 2 channel goes to the second set of inputs on the preamp or
in your case another input on the mac.

so now if me or you want to listen to 2 channel
we flip to the input of the denon 2200. "2 channel"
if we want to listen in multi channel we flip to
the input from the reciever.

now when you are listening to 2 channel you can either use the input
on the mac from the 2200 then it controls volume.
or you can use the input from the reciever and set
the volume about half way on the mac
"be careful switching back (very loud) without turning the volume back down"
then the nad will control volume.

I hope that was to confusing sounding.

but it works trust me! and for me works really well!

 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1615
Registered: Dec-03
ghia that was a typo!

it should have said!

"by using the front preouts
of the nad to the mac. any sound that would come out the front speakers
will "NOW" come out of the mac."

SORRY IT SHOULD OF SAID NOW INSTEAD OF NOT!

my bad typing again!


 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1616
Registered: Dec-03
woops another typo!

"I hope that was to confusing sounding."

should have been

"I hope that WASN'T to confusing sounding."

 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1617
Registered: Dec-03
anyways it may be to complicated when tired.

get some sleep then if you look at it in the morning
you'll probably see what i'm doing.

using the nad as a preamp to your mac is the basic idea.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


"be careful switching back (very loud) without turning the volume back down"


Yes, it could be quite loud. This is why they have those warnings on liquor bottles and antihistamines about not operating high powered machinery while under the influence. Maybe those warnings should be amended to cover high powered amplifiers.


 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2237
Registered: Dec-03
Marc,

I thought you had settled on the KEF 104/2 many moons ago, and was wondering how it worked out. Were they not for a girlfriend?

My Rantz and Ghia,

In my view, trying to catch up with the thread, there was nothing intended to be personal in MR's post, but it could, just, be taken that way. Classic misunderstanding. Ghia, your experiments with different combinations of gear are the thing most consumers cannot do, or are unwilling to spend the time at. It is great to read what you find.

Jan,

By the time my ISP returned my notification, I had missed most of the thread you linked. I went there, read through it, composed several terse remarks about oscillosopes' deplorable taste in music, but saw the heat had died down, and thought "why fan the flames?". There is a real question behind all that, I think, which is why people think there is some conflict between what you can measure and what you can experience more directly, with your senses. We have seen this debate before; I had it one with Gregory. If understood it right, the Fry man was saying what you can measure takes precedence over what you experience, or think you do, while you are saying the opposite. That is leaving aside the guy's condescension and breathtaking arrogance, of course. I see you react in the same way that I do to being patronised!

All,

Having come down on the side of honest reports of first-hand experience, I have to say I remain sceptical about spraying/wiping stuff on CDs making any difference at all, Classical 1. Yes, "how does it work?". We can all persuade ourselves we hear differences that aren't there; it is not dishonesty, it is how our brains work. The way to do that test properly is have two copies of a number discs, play them to people who do not know which is which, with the person loading the disc not knowing, either, then see, afterwards, if there is any statistical difference between what people report for treated and untreated discs. I.e. the dreaded double-blind trial. Unless the difference really hits you in the face, every time. C 1 you must forgive people like me who find that very hard to believe. Discs are optical devices, with little mirrors. They just need to be clean. No disrespect. You do go a little into hard-sell mode, though, if I may say so. The fluid has some chemical composition - does it have to be that particular brand.....?

Finally got the A family Saturday night casting vote; a DVD-V I brought back from UK. 1993 production of "Porgy and Bess". Wonderful; moving; stunning cast; fantastic performance. In stereo. No center; no sub. The hurricane storm on Catfish Row was scarier than anything from any number of subs. "Bess you is my woman now/Porgy you is my man" has you choking, and needs no center channel. What an extraordinary and beautiful musical, or opera, or whatever it is called. EMI7243 4 92496 9 1. I will not copy it for anyone; £10 for that is money well spent, I assure you. A classic.

Discussed the NAD/EMI problem again with family over dinner. We are all softies and get attached to things. NAD made a brilliant DVD-A player, in good faith, up to published spec.; gives great customer service; is caught out by EMI's unannounced lurch into copy protection. EMI has not responded to the same e-mail I sent to NAD, and there is nothing on the box to warn you before you buy.

I think, if it can be updated, we will keep the NAD T533, and maybe I'll get a separate SACD player one day. If we have the option of getting say a Denon 2910 (replacing the 2200, confusingly - I imagine they hope people will think it is a price drop), then I'll audition it, but it's still a whole lot more money than the T533. Instead, I could probably get a respectable, separate CD/SACD player, or begin saving for my McIntosh amp... There is, of course, the question of the HDMI interface for video.

Have Nov. HFN with its AV supplement and reviews of Spendor S6e, PMC DB1+ "LS3/5a wannabe" (what is "tranmission line"?), the "inside story" on the LS3/5a legend from one of the guys involved in its design, and a trip to Audio Classics in NY.

I have no shares in anything, folks. I think I am going to get some new stuff some time next year, though: I am enjoying listening to music more than ever. I think I'll start with an RB300 tonearm, the Planar 3 motor upgrade, and look into an affordable valve amp.

I love you guys' descriptions of the Mac sound. Wish I could try it. I'll look for Mac dealers; another New Year's Resolution. But I can only stand so many reminders of my place in the economic hierarchy.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2239
Registered: Dec-03
Classical 1,

In my opinion you are recommending snake-oil. Or more likely, Turtle Wax (TM) with about a 10,000 % mark-up. No I have not tried it. But consider:

We've developed a new product that improves the sound of CDs and the sound and picture quality of DVDs by as much as 30%.

Ah, the oscilloscope again, probably.... I love "as much as". 0% is "as much as" 30% and well the writer knows it. He is covering his options because he knows full well that there is no linear scale of sound and picture quality. That is, actually, what the word "quality" means. You might as well say Picasso was up to 30% better than Salvador Dali. For Pete's sake....

First, we mix Vivid ourselves, very precisely, using ingredients that clean, destatic and optically enhance the disk. Some of the ingredients are also used in car wax which accounts for its smell.

Does it work? It could fill in any scratches with wax of about the same refractive index as the plastic the disc is made of. But so would Turtle Wax. I can guess the application instructions: apply thin layer gently, covering whole surface. Allow to dry. Buff off with small circular motions of supplied non-abrasive cloth. No?

From the same makers:


SST Super Silver Treatment
Ultra-pure, micron-sized silver flake suspended in a carefully- selected organic fluid. As the SST breaks in, the molecular structure of the silver aligns with the current flow smoothing out the power transfer and enhancing the contact between component connectors. The results are cleaner, clearer and better focused highs.


That makes it clear, doesn't it? If it actually worked, they would not need to write stuff like that.

Don't you think?

By the way is "SST" the stuff, or what you do with it?

Source

There is a comparative, subjective review of three competing brands of snake-oil, one a CD mat, written in the same breathless style, here.

Consider this latest breakthrough; another brand of snake oil, "aptly named 'Digital Juice'" [Kerr-rist...] can affect the music without affecting the sound.

The differences between treated and untreated discs were rather interesting. I say interesting, because at first there seemed to be little change sonically to the disc. What did happen though is that there's a change muscially to the discs! That is, CDs just sounded better than before, but in a way that is more of a musical nature than one of sonics.

Which, roughly translated, means "I imagined it".

Even making the charitable assumption that "muscially" is a typographical error. But who knows?

Happy Sunday, Old Dogs.
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 808
Registered: Aug-04
Ghia,

I am through arguing in this copy protect debate, but I must clear up any misconceptions.
My reference to indivudual artists was to Jan's mention of Pavarotti and Gene Kruper. You Old dogs should know me enough by now that if I say somesome like " I sorry, my intention was not to offend etc" then I am to be believed. If my intentions were otherwise I would not hide behind false apologies amd mealy-mouthed words - I'd darn well tell you straight up!

You, John, Jan and the other dogs are just as entitled to your opinions as I am mine. But, you guys are right, I am wrong - it's just much easier that way.

2Y'S UR 2Y'S UB IC UR 2Y'S 4ME!
 

Classical 1
Unregistered guest
Well, John A. you dissemble mightily, sir, but all I'll say is that I (and 6 friends) did hear major differences - and see them, too. That's all I'll say, as I have no scientific training, as you appear to have. Well - sorry if I got up on a stump, but I have forever complained about the sound quality of CDs - and anything that (even if it is all in my mind?) helps I tend to embrace.
Is the darned stuff just watered-down car wax? Heck, maybe it is - and maybe I need to go out, get some Turtle Wax, and try it! I have not used the SST, but I know that several of you have used ProGold, which is in the same category, I think. How about it, ProGold users, is it all snake oil, as John A. loves to proclaim?
But I haven't the time, sir, as I'm on my way out the door for a hard-work week or 10 days, then on to Siesta Key (Sarasota) Florida and my beloved Colgate 26 sailboat. Fine racer, that one!
Happy dissembling all, and to all, a good week!
More later. . .
 

Silver Member
Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 428
Registered: Apr-04
Thanks Kegger! I believe the "not" instead of the "now" is what threw me off. Thanks for the followup and explanation. Makes sense and will try it. The only logistic now is figuring out how to make room for 2 pairs of front speakers (since I ultimately will use B&W or Spendor on the fronts.)

JohnA

Interesting info on the CD treatments. You do have to wonder at what point the "tweaks" become figments of imagination.

The testing was done only because there was no one around this weekend to tell me this is an an-al retentive exercise. lol. I do wish all the OD's could be here for the comparison. It would be nice to get more experienced ears involved. At the very least, I think I will invite someone over who has not heard either system and who does not know which I prefer and see what they have to say.

You are right, the Mac prices are pretty humbling. As Jan mentioned before, I might be able to afford their current multichannel receiver in 25 years as a used unit....unless I sell NAD and B&W then don't get Spendors, don't go to SF next year,etc.

If the NAD T533 is working for you and your family, I would put the money towards a Mac instead of another source (knowing what I now know). Of course, getting both would be the ultimate. Are you really considering getting a Mac? Would it be for the HT system or the 2ch?

Jan,

What are your thoughts on Mac's MHT 100 and MHT 200 a/v integrated amps? Would anything be lost from a musical perspective?

MR,

Understood. I'm sorry for my early misconception. My first instinct tends to be to try to figure out what someone "really" meant instead of trusting what was actually said. It's a character flaw.
 

Silver Member
Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 429
Registered: Apr-04
In regards to measurement vs experience debate, I came across this article and thought it might be interesting to some:

Deeper Meanings by Robert Harley

Which sparked 8 pages of letters to the editor found at the following link:

Letters to Editor
 

Silver Member
Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 430
Registered: Apr-04
This afternoon, I'm going to test some car wax on a few of my CD's. Instead of Turtle Wax I'll use Zymol which smells great! Hopefully, there will be improved sonic qualities and a fresher smelling house. Will report back later.
 

Silver Member
Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 431
Registered: Apr-04
From Newsweek article about Jazz at Lincoln Center:

The acoustic triumph of the whole project is the Allen Room, with that sky-size window. Glass is an acoustician's nightmare, but by angling the window slightly, the designers pushed the sound up, not back at the audience. When it hits the ceiling, it meets a grid of spongelike diffusers that spread the music back over the audience with an almost golden quality. Another big plus is something you'll never see: to keep it free of outside sound or vibration, the Rose Theater floats within the building around it, like a box within a box. It's connected only at the floor, where it rests on neoprene. As a result, the hall is quieter than most recording studios. But the best feature of all was a happy accident: only when the room was finished did its designers discover that, thanks to the box-within-a-box design, cell phones don't work there.

How cool is that? Jan, is it too late to "float" your backroom? lol.

Full article
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


I'm afraid my 1920's bungalow wouldn't tolerate floating anything. But it is interesting, I think, to find spaces that are done that way in the original design of the house. Back when the house was built there were four chimneys in the house, one on an exterior wall and three that were on interior walls. The three interior chimneys had to have isolation from the framing of the house so, as I have run wires throughout the house for stereos and new AC outlets I have found many spots where the rooms are not physically connected to one another as they are in modern construction. The use of the chimney space to create closets and a pantry and a large hallway in the center of the house means most rooms only touch one another in infrequent spots, if at all. The walls of the house are lathe boards over the studs which gives a good thick sturdy, wall that is equivalent to the modern idea of double thick wall board. The isolation from room to room, and to external noise, is very good and I don't have a bad sounding room in the house. The ten foot ceilings help there also. The dimensions of the rooms are a natural aid to good sound, no square rooms and no dimensions that are divisible by a common number. This is one more example of "they don't build them like that anymore". I have helped clients create new rooms and the added expense of creating a good sounding room is rather high today when it was common practice when my home was built.

As far as the McIntosh A/V gear is concerned, the first thing to understand about Mac is they do not have different standards for different pieces of equipment. McIntosh has always built their equipment one way. What they consider the right way. That's a pretty loose term as we would hope no one is designing a product the wrong way. Unfortunately, some are; but, that is a story for another time. For now, we'll just pull the blanket up snug and we'll go to sleep to Jan telling us about how McIntosh builds amps.
McIntosh has, for me, been a guide post between what you can measure and what you can hear. From the first McIntosh product there was an idea of what they wanted to achieve and among those many goals (today known as a "mission statement") was the accurate reproduction of a signal, be it music in the home or studio or raw information in a laboratory. (Mac has had a dedicated market in audiology labs and other scientific areas for decades because of their measured accuracy and reliability to maintain those specs.) In the first threee decades of McIntosh's existence they were, along with a few other companies, percieved to be one of the most musically satifsfying products you could own. As the High End market emerged in the 70's and 80's, Mac was often thought to be a lost company because they did not rush to put this type of wire or that sort of capacitor in their products. But as the companies that were "hot" for awhile started to fall by the wayside, McIntosh continued to produce products that satisfied people musically and still worked in the labs.
I would suggest that the pleasure that several of us have found in the McIntosh products we own is evidence that Mac was always doing things right. And there were, and still are, other companies that had a good idea what they wanted to achieve and were very consistent about what they produced. Quite a few of these companies, similarly to Mac, were run and staffed by engineers and "scientists". Most of these companies relied on measured performance to tell them when they had designed a good product. I would, and have, put my Mac tubes up against any audio made today and know they will not be embarassed. As I pointed out, the MC275, the big brother to my amps, designed in the early 60's, is rated a Class A amp by Sterephile in their most recent issue. The sound that the Mac integrateds we own is producing for each of us is a good indication that basic design and construction is the most important part of what will produce good sound. None of our integrateds have fancy caps or resistors, they all have push type connectors for speaker wires (not speaker cables). And yet they are very nice to listen to and would not be out of place in any price range of matching components. In the 80's and 90's McIntosh was considered almost a dead company by the high end police. Mainly because they stuck with what they had and didn't rush to put this or that in their equipment. They were denegrated because they had given up their tube designs and produced nothing but solid state. (I'm here to tell you, as much as I love my Mac tubes, there isn't a whole lot of difference between them and the 6200. It's there but they are obviously cut from the same cloth.) Other high end/high priced companies ran with the new ideas, often recycled old ideas, with new parts and new this or that. Several companies became famous and made their owners lots of money by this method. Mac seemed almost stubborn in their refusal to follow trends. They wouldn't have their gear submitted to the subjective magazines.
But as time went on Mac slowly changed and started using poly caps and metal film resistors; they put heavy binding posts on their amps and gold plated RCA's and XLR's on their gear. (Would they have done this had the ownership not changed in the 90's? No one can tell.) Today they are back in the magazines, they are producing tube designs and they are getting reviews that compare their musicality to the very best on the market. But the thing that hasn't changed in anyway is the idea of how Mac builds their equipment and how it ultimately sounds. Having been indoctrinated (brainwashed) by McIntosh over thirty years ago I would say a large part of what made McIntosh was their devotion to the music. A brand new McIntosh sounds very much like a forty year old McIntosh. And Mac has always been sold on the idea that there was no difference in sound between the least expensive and the most expensive. The client just chose based on the amount of power and the flexiblity they needed/desired. I can name plenty of companies that were hot for a while and are totally out of business and mostly forgotten by the masses of audiophiles out there. I always sold Mac with the concept that the client may find something better or more to their tatse (and I had others to listen to if they wished) but the client could never go wrong with any piece of Mcintosh. I would say I probably lost some sales to people who wanted me to tell them Mac was old school and they should buy this amp or that pre amp. But I thought I was being honest in my assessment. One other company I sold that seemed to parallel Mac was Quad. I would be happy with any product from either company.



 

Classical 1
Unregistered guest
Thought I'd check in here before I get into the Toyota and drive away. Glad that our CD "wax" is giving you all so much enjoyment. I understand your reticence - as I, too, thought it might be voo-doo. But seven of us heard differences, and that's good enough for me.
John A. - you seem like a person who loves to shoot down what you don't understand. Iconoclast is too mild a term, sir. IF you try something, then label it hocum, fine. But may I suggest that you try a product, then criticize.
No, I'm not trying to "sell" anybody anything. But don't you - all of you - have occurrances where you find a speaker, amplifier, CD or even stylus-cleaner that makes you feel good? Ah, then you want to tell others about it, unless I miss my guess. Such is the "Vivid" for me.
I may or may not access this forum during the next week or so - but I hope that you don't say horrible things about me behind my back. I mean well - I really do.
More much later. . .
 

Silver Member
Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 432
Registered: Apr-04
Classical 1,

Have a safe trip! Do check back in with us.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


After that last epic I feel I still have something to say (how is that possible you ask)about subjective and objective attitudes. (Well, I'll tell you how. This is helping me avoid working on the back room today, that's how. This is long and rambling and you are probably better to ignore it since it most likely has no real point other than I don't want to smell paint thinner right now.)

It seems John, in his remarks to Classical 1, is dismissive of the results that were observed by a group of listeners, or at least skeptical without further proof. Yet, John seems to back me up on my comments to the "techie" in another thread who seems determined to "bust the myths" of others when they are merely ideas the techie doesn't want to accept. (The techie was/is arrogant about it so there is large difference there.)

It appears to me the world is getting more argumentative and that arguments are becoming a large part of our daily life. That is evident here in the States by our politics. By this time a year ago, the majority of voters knew how they would vote, Republican or Democrat. There is a very small number of undecideds and, I think, as some have suggested, they are not undecided but uninterested. But that division of ideas is creeping into our daily lives. And I don't exclude my self from this mix of attitudes. I work my garden organically and believe in its benefits. I find the claims of the chemical companies to be disingenuous though neighbors claim their successes with those products. I find the word conservative to be a sphinchter tightening sound. Others use the word liberal to explain everything in a Pavlovian fashion. Neither side is willing to give an inch to the other. And amazingly the word I hear the most from all sides in all debates is VooDoo. They want to destroy something that is based in faith, which is the essence of VooDoo I believe. Mr. Harley touches on this in the article Ghia linked to.

I have been involved in HiFi long enough, as have most of you, to have heard innumerable tweaks that were claimed to make my humble system so good it would make Lew Johnson or Frank McIntosh tremble in fear. As a salesperson I had to decide what tweaks I would represent to my clients and how I would go about doing such. I've had people, as I said, that I lost a sale to because I suggested McIntosh was very good when they wanted to hear Mac was old school and this is what I should sell everyone. I've been told I couldn't possibly sell everything as good when there must be one that is best. I've been told everything is the same why bother. I've heard LP vs. CD, tubes vs. transistors, cable vs. just wires and on and on and on.
Probably the best tweak I have heard is opening a select number of strategically placed CD covers would smooth out the sound of your system. OK, I can accept that there can be a difference but I'm not willing to go down that path. There was a small journal a while back called "The Wood Effect" and among its claims was that wood is bad for your system. I could accept that also; but, the author never explained why the wood in the speaker cabinet wasn't bad.
So over the years I have tried to form my ideas about what I will believe and what I won't as have most of us. One thing I have settled on believing is that I believe the other person can do, see, hear, smell, taste and feel things I can't. They can also know things I don't and/or can't. So I never doubt anyone anything they tell me they have experienced. Another thing I believe is it is doing no one a service to ignore or dismiss any ideas. So I have a problem with those who want to tell me something can't happen. I try to understand how or why something happens and then file that into a group that I can pull out and go, "OK, that is related to that." Rather like the idea that when the pasta pot is over the flame for the required nine minutes (2 1/2 for fresh pasta) the pot is going to be pretty darn hot to the touch and a piece of linguine will burn my tongue if I take it from the pot into my mouth. (Just as a word of cautionary fact, the wooly worms are particularly thick and dark this year. That means we're going to have a hard, cold winter.)
I can accept the idea that Clasical 1 believes there is a difference to be had with his fluid. I have to accept that not everyone wants to believe that idea and therefore demands it is impossible. What I can't accept is that I believe both positions to be true. To accept or reject an idea and shut down all thinking is doing neither side a favor. I assume this is where John would agree with me. How we go about prooving the results to ourselves is different I suspect. I have the faith that if I percieve a result that fits into my frame of how and why that is enough for me. Others will demand scientific, repeatable proof. They are more than welcome to measure their little hearts out. If they aren't satisfied they are getting the results I obtained then they should just move on. I don't see the purpose of continuing to argue the point. (This is where you all are remembering how many topics I have beaten into the ground, includung this one, isn't it?) But if I have satisfied myself with the results that is good enough for me. I'll pass on the results and if someone else wants to give it a try that's fine by me.
The question was asked about contact cleaners vs. CD treatments. They fall into a slightly different category with me. When I clean my system with ProGold or Cramolin I can see the residue being removed. When I clean my CD's I usually don't see a difference of the same magnitude. Is the CD surface cleaner or more shiny? I'd say yes. Is that good? I'd say yes. I know there are mold release agents on the CD when it is pressed that probably are not removed completely unless I do the job. Does it make the CD sound better? If I think it does that is all I require. Could I do it less expensively with another material? I don't know but how many am I willing to try before I just buy what is being sold? Or buy nothing at all.
Do I think various tube types make my amplifiers sound better than some others? Yes. Do I think tube amps are better than solid state? Some are and some aren't. I know I can be happy with the sound of a Dynaco ST70 and with the sound of a McIntosh 6200. And they are not that similar to one another. But they both represent a musical truth that I can find.
I think most all of us would agree that none of our systems sound alike. That is because we all listen for different qaulities. And we all want our systems to sound better and there is a constant desire to find something that will improve our systems more than the price would indicate is possible. Classical 1 didn't hear the cones but hears the fluid. I don't find that unusual.
Problems arise when we are presented with the dilema of we want to believe but we don't want to be taken advantage of. It is the dilema of a salesperson everyday. How to present a product or idea as better when the client has in the back of their mind they don't want to be taken in. There's no one answer any more than one answer suffices for any qualitative judgement I can think of.
Presenting that idea, though, does seem to be a part of why we are all on this forum. To learn and decide what works for us. It seems to work well when minds are kept open and ideas are presented as nothing more than ideas. We're all capable of making up our own minds. I know I have gotten a burr under my saddle when someone has tried to tell me I can't hear or see what I know I just heard or saw. But I hope I've not been a pain about my opinions. Like John wanting proof of the fluid's value I want proof of SACD's value. I haven't found it yet but I'll keep looking and listening. On the other hand, Rick's prompting made me go back and try other options with regard to the speaker placement. That has been a great success.
I would suggest that no one dismiss any idea and no one take offense at another's words or ideas. Try what you like and can afford. If it works for you that is the result of listening. If next week you find something you think works better then let us all know.
As long as all ideas are taken as helpful there should be no problem along the way. Hopefully we will all benefit from the trip.

That was long winded wasn't it? Now it's back to the mineral spirits.



 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


Before I go get a good whiff :

There was a short quote in the last issue of Newsweek from Bill Cosby that relates to perception.

Bill Cosby had been to a Ray Charles concert. After the performance Cosby walked backstage to greet Charles. He made the remark, "Ray, that was great. But all of you band members are white."
Ray Charles replied, "Really? They don't sound white."


 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


From the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/business/yourmoney/10theater.html?oref=login&t h


 

Silver Member
Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 433
Registered: Apr-04
Jan wrote:

wooly worms are particularly thick and dark this year. That means we're going to have a hard, cold winter.)

They do this in TX too?!? I thought this was just an NC thing. We have a Woolly Worm festival every year to help predict winter....back to reading your post.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 546
Registered: Dec-03
Jan,

I'm starting to feel all warm and fuzzy, tell me another bedtime story Uncle Jan......PLEASE?

I finished my stands today. They now stand 10" tall with new maple top plates. Keep in mind I don't have the brass conepoints under the base, or front of the speaker for time alignment yet. With the S3/5's flat on the stands the bass is still strong and full and doesn't seem as boomy as it does directly on the floor. The soundstage is both wide and tall. The midrange also smoothes out a bit better at 10". I can't wait to get the conepoints in place, as I'm sure that will fill in the last piece of the puzzle. I'll let you know.

Oh, you asked if I heard any sonic benefit with warm up with the 6100....Yes, it sounds better after "on" for an hour or so. Warmer, for lack of a better term.

Ghia,

I am trying to cover some earlier posts. As to the Mac cabinet, I decided to go with rosewood. You have to understand or know my cabinetmaker friend. He is a wonderful human being and friend, but he has back orders for 6 months. I will get my cabinet, it will be beautiful, by when is anybody's quess. I am not surprised by any of your observations regarding the 6200. Sorry to hear about the Spendors.......I can't wait for your opinion with the Mac. Have you tried any other speaker placement{s}? Would love to hear you thoughts.

Rantz,

You see, you have it all wrong again! It's always easier if I'M WRONG and all the rest of you are right! LOL!

Glad I could clear that up...................
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest



Rick - All right but this is the last one.

Once upon a time there was a Republican President who thought everything was going just hunky-dorie. Then along came a good Massachusets Liberal and his brave South Carolinian side kick with really white teeth...















Aww, the little guy's asleep all ready.












Looks like he's having nightmares again.







 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 547
Registered: Dec-03
That's a REALLY scary story Uncle Jan.

They aren't friends of that mean old Uncle Teddy are they? We all know what He did!
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 809
Registered: Aug-04

No, no, Rick! I'm wrong. I insist :-)

Glad to hear that all the floor crawling, strange looks and ridicule are becoming mere bumps in the road to achieving "that sound" - next up the Walker 'Vivid' CD enhancer. But beware a good bollicking from John A if you come back with a postive review. I wonder if anyone has actually tried "Snake Oil" hmmm - maybe I should trademark that name. Speaking of snake oil, and thanks to a big audio fair/sale/see-them-coming exravaganza this weekend, I upgraded the audio interconnects with some fair priced, made in China, silver soldered, 99.9% oxy free, 24k gold-plated, ultra-conductive OFC cable with clamped metal cases. Sounds like really impressive stuff, but did it make for more impressive sound? I 'think' it helped to make the sound slightly more revealing than with the 'Radio Shack' type I was using - 'think' being the operative word here - as slight as the difference may be, it could be a psychological one also. More so because I think this audio business tends to make one a bit insane anyhow.

Ghia,

Apology accepted. I'll be interested in your audio comparisons and would like to be there for them, because after hearing Steely Dan's Guacho on SACD 5.1 through our Denon 2900/Marantz 7300/JBL/B&W set up, I would find it hard to believe that anything else could sound better - a far- reaching I know, but even my better half was in awe.

And I like it when she is in awe :-)

Yes Jan, more good stories and, like I said, write a book. That way we can read them to our grandkids.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 548
Registered: Dec-03
Rantz,

Uncle Jan is scaring me..................Make him stop!
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 810
Registered: Aug-04
Rick,

Just repeat after me: George is good. George is good. George is . . .

It worked for me. I chanted: Little Johnny is good. Little Johnny is good . . .

And he won with a clear majority! No more nightmares. :-)
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


Rick - Wait til I get to the part about the gruff old V.P.
Talk about scary!



 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 549
Registered: Dec-03
George is g_ _ _. George is g_ _ _. Well George

is George. George is George.





at least he's Republican.
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

New York USA

Post Number: 275
Registered: Mar-04
Hey, careful what you spread on these internets....You wouldn't want anyone thinking this is a political forum now would you???
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 811
Registered: Aug-04
What! George is a Republican!

What was I thinking?

Oh, that's right! George the publican.

Phew!

George is good . . . George is good . . .

 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 550
Registered: Dec-03
Sem,

Thank you. You know the saying, there is nothing more personal than ones politics, religion, and hifi.

I just can't resist a good bedtime story! LOL
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2240
Registered: Dec-03
Sorry to be slow. I had to change my contact e-mail, the old one was was not working, or delivered messages days late. Somehow I got unregistered in the process, and could not post on Sunday at all. Let me make brief points; will be back.

re "vivid" disc treatment; I wrote lots on this but it is fairly arcane, about statistics and such. For now....

Classical 1,

"I mean well - I really do."

I am sure of it. And I thank you for sharing what you think.

" John A. - you seem like a person who loves to shoot down what you don't understand."

No, totally not. That is a very serious charge, sir!.

"IF you try something, then label it hocum, fine. But may I suggest that you try a product, then criticize."

Yes, of course, but, by then, the'll have my $45 or whatever.

Seems to me Old Dogs could do a pretty good test. For example, we could make some disc images from treated and untreated disc copies, otherwise idential, post them under a password to be sent off-line (I can do that), download, and compare. Someone, not in the test, will need to keep the key to which disc is which, not to be revealed until we have all answered all the questions, the first being: "do you hear any difference between disc copy a and disc copy b?" "Yes" OR "No"?

If "Vivid" claim the stuff does not work if you make digital copies from the treated discs, we've got them checkmate in one move.

Jan,

This wil seem glib after your great and detailed arguments. I promise/threaten to write more.

But...

I have the faith that if I percieve a result that fits into my frame of how and why that is enough for me.

Well, you don't need faith in that; you know it.

And isn't that the sort of thing the nuns said....?

But if I have satisfied myself with the results that is good enough for me.

That's just what we all do all the time.

I'll pass on the results and if someone else wants to give it a try that's fine by me.

That is a point on which we agree, and I imagine the nuns would not. It makes all the difference.


As long as all ideas are taken as helpful there should be no problem along the way.


There are some very bad and unhelpful ideas in the world, in my opinion.

$45 on some stuff to put on CDs is not such a big deal, admittedly (to us: it is still month's income in some parts of the world). But the principle is the same.

"Here is something you will want; you cannot know how good it is until you've bought it, for reasons of copyright/intellectual property/whatever;..."

"... and it works like this "blah blah ...molecular structure ...blah blah ...musically but not sonically...dielectric...ancient Indian recipe...blah blah...from organically-grown snakes.../whatever".

Oh yes, "...and many clever and learned people have believed it, so what makes you so arrogant that you think you know better than they do....?"

Jan, I think we must both be still reliving damaging experiences in our formative years!

All the best.

PS Have registered a new e-mail alias on this forum inspired by this thread; every string of characters has significance, some unintended, even ".com". Hope nobody minds. I can change it, if someone does.

Must go.

Rick,

"George is George"

Now we're getting somewhere!

PS Spendor way to go by Nov HFN
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 551
Registered: Dec-03
JohnA.,

Jan's sniffing paint fumes and you're bringing up the nuns again. We don't want another incident now, do we? You never know what's going to set him off.

As far as the "tweaks" go, I have to side with Jan. Nothing makes me madder than when I hear, see, or feel something, and then one wants to show me "scientific" proof why I didn't.

BTW, I fully endorse the new e-mail address!

Cheers.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Asimo

Post Number: 28
Registered: Apr-04
John A and others

I was happy to see that you had a good musical experience and a full audio impact from the DVD-V opera" Porgy and Bess"
This DVD opera was a real excitement in our opera club session.
As you probably know from my other massages we have stereo DVD and sometimes projector with large screen but no sub, no surround and no multi channels. It is all PCM stereo.
This opera is so real that it goes strait to your heart and soul and lets you feel of being in. I think this opera can be called "greater from life" opera.
This is the original version of Gershwin and this is what he meant. He composed an opera not a musical and not a movie.
If you did like this opera I have another recommendation: "War and peace" by Prokofiev. I think that it is another greater from life opera but take the new one Bertini\Paris opera from year 2000
I did not enter much to the forum recently because I have found that the forum lost some of its interesting music, audio or technical discussions glamour. Some of the massages are personal remarks or even worse and some have nothing to do with audio video or music.

 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 812
Registered: Aug-04
John A stated:

"Yes, of course, but, by then, the'll have my $45 or whatever."

At least these 'Vivid' suppliers provide a full refund if the unused portion is returned within 30 days. That's something isn't it?

Wouldn't Classical 1 have used such a guarantee if he did not think the product did what they claimed?

And John, haven't you noticed a polished car goes faster?

[grin]


Asimo stated:

"I did not enter much to the forum recently because I have found that the forum lost some of its interesting music, audio or technical discussions glamour. Some of the massages are personal remarks or even worse and some have nothing to do with audio video or music."

Yes old dogs, it's time you pulled up your socks (sox) er well - paw covers then!






 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2241
Registered: Dec-03
Thanks, Asimo. Porgy and Bess is the best thing I have seen and heard for ages - and it is two-channel!

Rick,

Yes, I worried about Jan and those solvents.

I am not trying to prove that Classical 1 is wrong about the CD-treatment. I am just cautioning that things are sometomes not what they seem. That does not diminish the value of anyone's experience, or call into question their integrity. And if six people agree on something, that can have various explanations; is not sufficient reason to accept it.

"I believe because I believe, and feeling good about it is all that matters" is a dangerous path, in my opinion. I know no-one actually said that. I am paraphrasing/exaggerating. It is no response to "you'd better believe it because I say so" (which we've also read here, and is the general line that gets Jan mad, too).

I had better come back to this.

Yes, let's all try the stuff, and see what effect it has, if any. It could be done by post, too.

But I like the idea of making digital copies from treated and untreated discs. Wonder if you can hear the effect of treating those, too? And how many times can you treat a treated copy etc and still get improvements....?

It seem quite bizarre to me. All I would say is that, if it works, there is an explanation, and the one the guys give on their web site is not it. Or one at all.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 552
Registered: Dec-03


"some of the messages are personal remarks or even worse".......................

Would someone else like to respond while I try to get my blood pressure under control?

Thank you.

 

SACDude
Unregistered guest
Sorry to break in here, but I thought I'd bring you up to date on my own set of problems - audio and otherwise.
You remember that I was burglarized - well, the insurance company has been very generous, thanks in part to digital pictures of my entire home, taken by a friend and put on a CD-R(?) disc.
So, I shall have nearly enough money to replace my beloved B & W 705 speakers and the TV set - but the artwork is quite another matter. That's still under the gaze of "experts" who will try to see if I am a liar about the declared value!
Meanwhile, my now-former lady in residence (we were not married) has informed me that she will not be returning - I think perhaps this is a good excuse for leaving - for many reasons. So, I am quite sad, but do understand.
When all is settled I shall be moving, also - my apartment lease is up in December. The break-in has left too many fears and scars. I have relatives and friends in the Denver area, so will probably go there. As nearly all of my work is coordinated on the Internet, I can live just about anywhere I wish. And, frankly, I don't work much anymore! By choice.
Thank you for listening/reading - and I wish you all the best of luck. Oh, yes - I agree that my "name" is rather outlandish, so will gladly forget it!
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2242
Registered: Dec-03
Rick,

The new address works much better. It is an alias, so only works as a "to:" address. I am not sure I feel comfortable about that. New tricks to learn every day!

Sorry about the spelling in the above. Rick, I do warmly recommend that "Porgy". I know Gershwin called it an American opera, as Asimo says. But what is the difference between a musical and an opera? West Wide Story...? The Sound of Music....? The Music Man...? Whatever it is, it is a genre at which the US excels. But those things aren't so different from e.g. La Belle Hélene... The Pirates of Penzance....

Cheers!

MR,

Thank you for 2Ys U R etc I have not heard that for decades!
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2243
Registered: Dec-03
SACDude,

It is good to hear from you; you keep posting, please. I am sure many here have been through such things, and one doesn't forget. I personally have never been burgled in that way, but I can relate to all the rest. There is not much to say that is not trite and "getting in on the act". Trite is "life is swings and roundabouts", but it is true, too.

Asimo,

Perhaps you fondly remember "Discoveries" and other threads, such as "Twilight of the CD II....?"; also Larry R's opera thread. I think "Teaching an old dog..." has kept to the original point amazingly well, considering, and it all relates to audio in some way. See Oct 6, onwards, above; right back to base camp. Still no solution, but I, for one, have learned many things about many things from some good people here, and see the "surround vs stereo" debate in a whole new way.
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 814
Registered: Aug-04
SACDude

Sorry about your misfortunes - sometimes there are reasons for things (as our dear old mothers would say). All the very best.
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 815
Registered: Aug-04
Rick

Keep it technical and please try to add a little glamour. In fact, a little lip gloss wouldn't hurt when posting your thoughts here. I mean really, let's have some couth!
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2244
Registered: Dec-03
You know, we are well placed to do the definitive CD-treatment trial. No-one knows anyone, and it can all be done over the internet. All we need is some specimen discs. Classical 1? Thinking about it, you would also need placebo pairs; pairs of discs that really were both treated or both untreated, mixed in with "treated vs. untreated" pairs, and with the investigator not even knowing which pairs were which, or how many of each were in the test. That's how they do drug trials, I believe. It has to be; there is the "placebo" effect, whereby people feel better after taking medicine with no active ingredient at all. Surely this can happen in hifi, too.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


John - "I have the faith ... that is enough for me."

" ... isn't that the sort of thing the nuns said?"


Yes, it is John. I don't believe I ever said I didn't have a great respect for those nuns that can live their faith day in and day out. That to me is one of the hardest things to do in a life. To take a stance and follow that committment in all situations. That committment isn't limited to nuns, it should be the way all of us go about our life. That's very difficult and the reason most of us can't manage a truly reasoned life.

The problem I find with faith is one of not being able to see the reality of the situation you have in front of you or being blinded to all but what you want to believe. There are times when the former will keep you in the trouble the latter has put you into. It becomes a "Me Good" and "Them Bad" mindset. Through history that has cost many lives and fortunes. I see it as even black and white aren't black and white in this world. (If you doubt that, just turn on yout TV set and try to find true black or white. And I'm talking color not politics here; but, others may choose differently.)

The problem I have with religion is there is no ability to see beyond the "facts" given to you and no tolerance of a position away from those facts. I'm not asking for proof a God does or does not exist. I have my belief and that is what I choose to live. It works for me as of 52 years and counting.

The problem I have with nuns is not all of them live that faith 24/7. Some just find it easier to be a nun than anything else. I understand that position but wish it weren't so. When they have lost even a small portion of their faith they turn to other avenues of believe and subject small children to a system of believe that even they can't be committed to living. That is the ebb and flow of all things in life, I guess.

Bottom line for me is several of the people I respect in life are nuns or people who carry out a committment as if they were a (good) nun.

******

"I'll pass on the results ...

That is a point on which we agree, and I imagine the nuns would not. It makes all the difference."


That is very true. Some of my most vivid memories from my Catholic education are nuns and priests wanting to shut down information. One of my most important memories from my Catholic education is a priest who felt information was the key to a life of faith. It does make all the difference.

******


"There are some very bad and unhelpful ideas ...

$45 ... is not such a big deal, admittedly (to us: it is still month's income in some parts of the world). But the principle is the same."


I'm not sure what principle your discussing there, John. The principle that someone may take your $45 and give you, in your opinion, nothing in return? That, dear John, is life. That is religion. That is faith; and, we are all constantly asked what is "this" worth to you? Only you can answer that question. That is a matter of belief and faith.

If you are saying the principle that $45 is a month's income for others that share this planet then I would whole heartedly agree that is the larger principle. How many times when we spend
X dollars on a product do we even stop for a microsecond to consider that X could have made the world a better place if it hadn't gone to The Guy. That is at the heart of Capitalism and Socialism, I believe, and will not be resolved in our lifetime. That is a question of principle.

******


" ... reasons of copyright/intellectual property/whatever"

Sounds like the Suasage Guy argument again.

******

" ... what makes you so arrogant ..."

Lack of faith. Just a guess.

******


" ... we must both be still reliving damaging experiences in our formative years!"


Never doubted that.

********

" ... new e-mail alias ... "

I like the address but think there should be a "very" in there somewhere.

******

"George is George"


If only it were that simple to explain.

******

"Some of the massages are personal remarks or even worse and some have nothing to do with audio video or music."


Yes, some of this forum is a massage for our egos. Not to pick on you typing errors, Asimo.

It is just a conversation at a party and you can come and go as you like when the topic interests you. Not everyone will find it interesting (I hope you haven't been insulted) but for some everything we discuss here can be related to HiFi in some way. But then, for some of us everything can be related to making suasage. That is also life as I see it. Please feel free to point us in a direction as we are all lost most of the time.


John - I finally found a copy of "HiFi News" in Dallas. The shop gets in 10 copies for all of Dallas. They were as helpful as a boil about it, too. I went over to the shop to find the October issue had just arrived. No story about LS3/5a's yet. I'll see if I can win the lotto for the Nov. issue. They have changed quite a bit from what I remember and the bulk of their music reviews were, I thought, close to useless.










 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2245
Registered: Dec-03
MR,

....you mean like Kathy Kirby....?

Lip gloss as CD-enhancer. Who knows?
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 816
Registered: Aug-04
John,

I hate to say it old pal, but I think that ol' hoss of yours is getting taller again. Classical 1, like most others here, seems to belong to the intelligent species, and if he and his six friends felt they observed/heard an improvement, then I for one, am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

After all, when you became an advocate for DVD-A you were urging people to spend a little more and get suitable eguipment to hear the benefit. No one suggested you were maybe a can short of a six-pack and I still thank you for the advice.

 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


See, the fumes haven't affected me all at.

"That's how they do drug trials, I believe"


Not in Dallas, we arrest the Hispanics, throw them in prison for years, find out the "drugs" were really chalk and refuse to let those in prison go or let a few go and say, "Tough, get over it. Oh, yeah, this is still on your permanent record." (Damn that permanent record.)


" ... what is the difference between a musical and an opera?"

A Musical is All American and nobody else can have it. An opera is so old europe.



 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2246
Registered: Dec-03
Jan,

Yes, yes. Thank you so much. The "nun" was a figure of speech, as yours was, too, in previous posts, I think. She stands for all those who believe that they have knowledge denied to others, and mean to keep it that way. Many real nuns are not like that at all, I am sure.

I have quoted here, before, approvingly, Mark Twain:

"Faith is believing things you know aren't true".

October HFN was quite good. Really good letters page.... November (I've only just got) has the LS3/5a story. I worry that I find that magazine interesting, it is surely a sign of terminal nerdiness. Mrs A falls asleep just looking at the cover.

"I'm not sure what principle your discussing there, John

Two really. That was my intention. Though it was not my intention to get them mixed up.

1. How do we know what to believe and what not to believe?

2. "There are some very bad and unhelpful ideas ..."

Well, I think we had the latter one out with the "armchair theorizing" argument, and ended up agreeing. We discussed some very bad and unhelpful ideas; I think you mentioned "Mein Kampf". I am fairly confident at throwing in original sin and vicarious redemption, in present company. No question, ideas change the world.

I know people get annoyed at the "Philosophy 101" angle , but it seems to me HiFi is a model for lots of other things; people can argue, be critical, measure things, listen and learn, and still end up wanting to go to war about things like CD enhancers. I think we who worry about sound reproduction are balanced.... (no puns, please, wait while I finish the sentence) ....are balanced right on the edge between science and culture; we want to believe things because they are true, but we also want the comfortable feeling of communicating with people who share our view, and for "truth to prevail".

There is no simple answer. [1000 ecoustics posters then chime in "It is simple: there is no simple answer" and another 1000 say "Yes there is"]. I imagine you've seen "The Life of Brian"....

Well. I am sure Asimo can see what this has to do with the possible advantages of multichannel sound for music... It's not so difficult. I know I can.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2247
Registered: Dec-03
MR,

No one suggested you were maybe a can short of a six-pack and I still thank you for the advice.

No, and I am not suggesting Classical 1 is, either. This will take more time than I have got right now. But I will not forget.

Jan,

Nice one; Nice two. By "drug trials" I meant "pharmaceutical efficacy investigations" or some similar concept. Oh, perhaps you did, too.... Will be back.

MR,

people who show "placebo" effects can be normal, rational, sane; have all the cans in the six-pack. It is how all our minds work. Even when sober.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest



"Many real nuns are not like that at all, I am sure."

There are only two things to be sure about, John. That's not one of them.

********

John - "I think we who worry about sound reproduction are balanced....are balanced right on the edge between science and culture; we want to believe things because they are true ... "

Please refer back to Ghia's post:

Deeper Meanings by Robert Harley

The audio thought police are more pervasive than nuns.


*************


"pharmaceutical efficacy investigations"

Please refer back to my discussions with Gregory, whenever and wherever those are.


********


"people who show "placebo" effects can be normal, rational, sane; have all the cans in the six-pack. It is how all our minds work. Even when sober."

Placebos rock!!! Though I'm not always in favor of that sober part.



 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 553
Registered: Dec-03

"Faith is believing things you know aren't true"

Yes John, but keep in mind Mr. Clements also said: "Don't believe anything you read, and only half of what you see."
 

Silver Member
Username: Arnold_layne

MadridSpain

Post Number: 174
Registered: Jun-04
... and I'd flike to fill in with : just believe 25% of what you hear, if you're listening to a CD... ;-)
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


Two deaths announced today. An actor and an athlete. The athlete admitted to taking steroids and drugs. The actor is getting more attention.



 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


Arnold - Make that 11.0075625% if you use Vivid.



 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2248
Registered: Dec-03
There are only two things to be sure about, John.

Jan, OK, I give in. Death and taxes?

We have agreed not to pay any attention to the audio thought police.

Watched "Cold Mountain" with family. Son's comment; you know it is a chickflick when you are woken up by your girlfriend crying. There must a gene for cynicism. Myself, I liked it. Great music/sound. Serious subject.

I think placebos have side-effects, knowledge of which the industry has tried to suppress.
 

Silver Member
Username: Arnold_layne

MadridSpain

Post Number: 175
Registered: Jun-04
Hmm... maybe rising to 12.3030012% if I spend 750 bucks on the "Silent source power cable"...

I haven't tried this magic potion. Maybe it can clean off all fingerprints and beverage stains, and apply a transparent, non-reflectant layer. But to perceive 30% improvement, I reckon we have to sniff the bottle for quite a while ;-)

 

Bronze Member
Username: Ojophile

Toronto, ON

Post Number: 61
Registered: Jun-04
I give Classical 1 and his friends the benefit of the doubt regarding the Walker CD enhancer product. However, any new product, regardless of its intended purpose, is subject to skepticism and validation. Decades ago, or even centuries ago, anyone who claimed he had a wonder product risked a certain degree of criticism and ridicule. Today, thankfully, we live in an age where most of us are fairly educated enough to question a manufacturer's claim with confidence and of course, civility.

Like John A, I'm skeptic of the CD enhancer product, and here are my thoughts:

Is it because the CD and/or DVD surface is cleaner? Jan wrote earlier, "When I clean my CD's I usually don't see a difference of the same magnitude. Is the CD surface cleaner or more shiny? I'd say yes. Is that good? I'd say yes."

Does this "vivid" CD enhancer improve the reflection of the pits on the CD as they are read by the laser beam? If so, then isn't that a further amplification of the signal as opposed to an improvement of the soundstage? In other words, is it possible that what the audience in Classical 1' s room heard was a louder sound, as opposed to a "more open" sound.

Isn't the mastering/remastering process the key to improved sound?

I'm skeptic of the line, "...some said the sound was fuller, warmer and more coherent, others said it was easier to pick out individual instruments." I have experienced this improvement when listening to 20-bit remastered CD's of early recordings, examples provided below:

Bill Evans Explorations

Getz/Gilberto

John Lennon Plastic Ono Band

I'm not an engineer and I have no clue as to what the 20-bit remastering process is all about. But I do believe that it is the process that improves the soundstage and thus, enhances the listening experience of the end consumer. I'm not convinced that a liquid product can open up certain pits on the CD surface to let loose hitherto suppressed sounds. Ditto for DVD surfaces to reveal deeper colours, richer hues, and finer detail.

It's easier to see the truth than to hear it - with respect to improved CD's and DVD's

Let me dare forward that argument and wait for the arrows to fly and fall on my side.

What I mean there is that it's easier to see an improvement in quality than to hear it. As I pointed out, I know that I can hear a difference in sonic quality between original CD reissues and 20-bit remastered editions.

Rick Barnes wrote: "Faith is believing things you know aren't true"

If I may add, "Where knowledge ends, faith begins". So goes a line in one of the songs in Lost Horizon, music by Burt Bacharach, lyrics by Hal David.

Perhaps there's some miracle in the Walker CD enhancer. But I would like to hear a recording/remastering engineer come forward and either endorse or debunk the manufacturer's claims. Or perhaps Consumer Reports can do a study.

Cheers!





 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 819
Registered: Aug-04
"I think placebos have side-effects, knowledge of which the industry has tried to suppress."

John, could one of these side effects be the cause of obsessions with conspiracies?

I was involved in a placebo test once and there's nothing wrong with me with me with me with me with me with me with me with me with me with me SLAP! Ahem, sorry.


Re: Cold Mountain - I am of your son's view though Zellwegger was good and Kidman, well she is improving - a little. A bit too long and a little boring IMO.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 554
Registered: Dec-03
John,

There are only two things to be sure about, John.

Gentlemen, if I may, there are actually three. I updated the list years ago.

......Death......Taxes......Dirty laundry......
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 820
Registered: Aug-04
Ojophile,

I agree with your comments. I neither believe nor disbelieve Classical 1's opinion about the product. However, there are many stranger things under the sun.

Even if an engineer/s reviewed the product favourably, there would still be plenty of scepticism: that he/they were paid off etc.

John A

"No, and I am not suggesting Classical 1 is, either."

No, I agree you weren't. Bad choice of words on my part and I apologise for the inference. But, your response to his report was a little tactless IMO, it was almost like telling him he's full of BS. Sorry, but that's my opinion and I accept that others may read it differently.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


"nothing wrong with me with me with me with me with me with me with me with me with me with me"

I knew there was a reason he was going to vote for TheNazi.


Ojo - Let me see if I can give you the salesperson's interpretation of items such as Vivid.
Before I begin let me direct you to Mapleshade Records. They are involved in recording and mastering discs, both vinyl and aluminum, and they have several products they claim will enhance the sound of your music collection.

http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/tweaks/index.php

When CD's came on the market there were significant crys of foul from the audiophile community. By this time, 1982, there had already been several years of tweaking going on in the audio aftermarket with many relating to cleaning and preparing a vinyl record for play. As the first attempts at tweaking the CD came along it only made sense that cleaning the disc would be one of the first areas that was suggested for improved sound.
John is correct that digital playback of a CD is a series of mirrors that represent the pits and flats of on/off or 0/1. What he didn't point out was the dimension of the "groove" which contains these mirrors. About 1/60th the width of a human hair on a CD they have been reduced further in size by the advent of DVD. We are talking a very small bit of anything can damage the signal as the laser travels through the disc surface material and it is reflected from the disc and picked up by the reading system.
I know of few people who don't readily accept that a record will sound better after it is cleaned though they can detect little or nothing really that is being removed from the disc. (This is not true if you use a commercial record cleaner which has a resorvior to collect the used fluid. After just a few cleanings you will see the grunge that is being removed from the disc surface. Maybe a cleaner like this would be more easily marketed for CD's if there was visible proof that material was being removed.) The problem seems to be people don't think there is anything on a CD to clean. It shines, it must be clean.
The manufacturing process for CD's is not that different from LP's in that heat and pressure are invloved in the production process. To get fewer defects from each batch, mold release agents are applied to the surface of the disc's material and, under heat and pressure, they are adhered to the surface of the disc.
By using a material that will remove these agents without damaging the disc surface you are, in effect, wiping the surface of the mirror clean. It shouldn't be hard to accept that if your bathroom mirror is foggy and you wipe the glass in front of the mirror's surface, you will get a cleaner, clearer reflection. That is one of the functions of a CD "enhancer". The more correct information the read system can gather the more accurate the sound as there is less reliance on the error correction systems to "make up" what should be there. In worst case scenarios the laser assembly can be made to hunt for the correct "groove" which drastically increases the error correction.
The other benefit of most CD enhancers is to reduce to a minimum the static that is on the disc surface. So the addition of an anti-static agent is usually included in these formulations.
There have been and are many different fluids for these purposes since the introduction of the CD. Some have met more success than others, but, because cleaning CD's, as is now done, means you can't see what you are removing, there is great skepticism about the claims made for the effectiveness of these products. This is similar to the pop and click removers that several companies marketed in the 80's and 90's. If they were effective the buyer didn't know they were doing their job. (They were intended to remove small noises and not large signals so there was little to tell how effective they truly were. Most were returned because the client didn't feel they got their money's worth.)
Many home brew cleaner/enhancers have been recommended over the past twenty years. As with the commercial products some have had more success than others. I mentioned WD-40 as an early item. It came under the gun when the silicone began to migrate under the layers of the discs. The carrying agents in WD-40 also had a clouding effect on the discs surface over time.
One home brew that, so far, has not had any bad reports of damage to the disc is Pledge. A spray on furniture polish it has a mild cleaning agent and a polishing agent that will give the surface of a new disc a shine similar to the more expensive fluids sold in the aftermarket. If you care to try it, as always, use the smallest amount posible and clean the disc as you would with water. Buff with a soft cloth (I use the inside of a terry sock) until you see the material dry and/or removed. Make certain what you use has no alchohol, petro chemicals or abrasives in the spray.
It is ususally not a goog idea to put a wax on the disc as, over time, the wax has a tendency to yellow or cloud.

As to your question about the volume difference in Clasical 1's evaluation I would tend to doubt the possiblity of a volume change overall. What might change would be the extremes of the dynamics But I would can't see the overall level changing. And of course a higher sampling will give better resolution but the desire is to make the best of what we have, which is lower sampling rate discs.
So you can see the gains to be made, sir. Do you want the large bottle or the economy size for a few dollars more?


 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 821
Registered: Aug-04
"I knew there was a reason he was going to vote for TheNazi."

Jan, another clue would be good - that one went straight over my head.

Now, do you prefer the lemon scent Pledge or is there another that might be your favourite?
Hmmm, I wonder if Bony/Fillops would be interested in "Super Smellaround" audio/video discs? For example, they could remaster "The Cider House Rules" with apple scent Pledged discs, Elvis's "Blue Hawaii" in hibiscus and so on.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


If you try a spray type furniture polish on your CD's use a soft terry cloth. As I said I use a terry athletic sock turned inside out to get the more absorbant side to the disc surface. If you want to buy a cloth for cleaning eye glasses, that may be better as long as it has no treatments in or on the cloth. Spray a very small amount of the polish on the sock and let it air dry for a few seconds and sink into the cloth. Rub the disc surface in long strokes from the center of the disc to the outer edge, never, of course, in a circular fashion. Turn the cloth to a dry spot and continue to rub the surface and buff the polish until you see no streaks on the disc surface. You should notice the surface of the disc is much more reflective than before you treated the disc. Just like your armoire the treatment should last for quite a while.
The less you use to get a good result the better you will be.
If there is any static in the room use a device to remove the static.
What will you hear? You tell me. Is it as good as a $75 treatment? You'll have to buy the $75 one to find out.




 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


Rantz - No, just the regular Pledge will do. I then light some incense and spray some room freshener around. I can then change the mood for the various types of music I'm playing. I haven't decided what goes with Wagner. Any suggestions?
Of course you will want the 36" industrial exhaust fan to make certain none of the fumes or perfumes lingering in the air can get to the CD inside the player. The fan is kind of loud but once you get used to the roar you can really notice the inner detail the treatment brings out.



 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 823
Registered: Aug-04
Fairy Nuff.

As for the fans - maybe for the NAD owners - they're used to the fan noise - Uh oh!

"I haven't decided what goes with Wagner. Any suggestions?"

Maybe "Rid" :-)
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 824
Registered: Aug-04
Anyway Jan, this polish concept sounds interesting. Will pick up some Pledge next shopping trip and try the experiment. I pledge to report back my findings.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ojophile

Toronto, ON

Post Number: 62
Registered: Jun-04
As for the fans - maybe for the NAD owners - they're used to the fan noise

That 36" industrial exhaust fan will drown the "hiss" issue totally.

Ooops! Just kidding.


 

Anonymuss
Unregistered guest
Here's more fuel for the fire!
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue14/vivid.htm
Happy reading!
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1618
Registered: Dec-03
yo jan when you decide to retube the mac consider
the EH tubes.

I've now used three different types!
6sn7,6l6gc,el34 and all are the best sounding tubes of those type!

they come dual/quad or 6 matched sets and are very well priced!
................................................
"Electro-Harmonix 6L6EH platinum matched sextet

Modeled after the vintage RCA 6L6GC "blackplate". The 6L6EH features large plate dimensions and improved grid structure for increased power handling capabilities. Also features mica spacers with metal springs to eliminate tube rattle and microphonics. The 6L6EH offers tone and performance superior to any other 6L6 or KT66 type. Electro-Harmonix platinum matching process consists of a 24 hour tube burn-in period followed by a bias (plate) current measurement in milliamps. We only sell these in matched sets of six.

$85.95 U.S. per set"

that was from soniccraft.com
...................................
partsexpress has singles/duals and quads.

............................

anyways I believe they are great tubes at a great price!


 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2249
Registered: Dec-03
Ojo,

Great post. Like Jan, I suspect that volume will not be affected by cleaning, though. The CDs I have that I judge "best sound" have 20 bit mastering, too. I think it just means they are retaining higher resolution until the disc is written at 16 bit. There is a Verve and/or Mercury re-issue series of CDs that converts the original analogue to digital at 24 bit for mastering. It would be interesting to be able to compare 2-channel CD (16 bit) with DVD-A (24 bit) with those.

Jan,

Great post. I can certainly take those explanations seriously. I have read somewhere that wax, such as in furniture or car polish, when carefully buffed off, can fill up scratches and to some extent restore tracking to discs with damaged surfaces. CD and DVD is a wholly different medium from LP. Apart from being discs with a hole in the middle. No mechanical contact on playback was always an attractive idea, in theory; you never needed to worry what a bad disc would do to your optical read-out, unlike a stylus.

MR,

No offence taken. Never. Yes, my DVD-A enthusiasm was a bit like Classical 1's for CD treatment. I was relieved when you and reported the same experience. I always worry I am imagining things....

there's nothing wrong with me with me with me with me with me with me with me with me with me with me

Great, you've finally come home to LP, too, I see!
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 827
Registered: Aug-04
"Great, you've finally come home to LP, too, I see!"

Uh Uh! I have let go - long ago.

Back to the polish - our local video rental shop has a twin disc polisher that takes the scratches out of the DVD-V discs and leaves them sparkling clean. Lately, we inspect all our rentals and ask they clean them, if necessary, before taking them home. I can't say I've seen/heard better picture/sound quality, but the discs have always played like new.

I've also noticed many cd's remastered in 24 bit. But, I've been spending money on DVD-A's and SACD's. One day, one will catch my eye and I'll try it. I have several 20 bit cd's and they do sound very good. So too do others that have no mention of bits, but would not be surprised if they were in fact 20 or 24 bit recordings.

Going to play Steely Dan's Gaucho SACD again shortly for the umpteenth time. Make myself a brew, and sit in the absolute listening position and find myself in - well - you would not believe how good this recording sounds. Elliot Scheiner has done it again!
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1619
Registered: Dec-03
I KNOW!
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

New York USA

Post Number: 276
Registered: Mar-04
MR,
You're right on the money with Gaucho. Its the one disc I keep going back to time and again.
 

Anonymuss
Unregistered guest
I usually avoid forums, because I feel that I have so little to say, though I've dabbled in stereo for decades. Anyway - I have been reading with interest your give-and-takes on the Vivid product. Well, I've been using it for nearly six months now - and must agree with "Classical 1" that it does help the sound of CDs.
No, I did not do any scientific testing, and yes, it may be "all in my head," but if that's the case, then the forty bucks or so was well worth it!
I did have a hard time, initially, in finding a way to buff the discs - finally took an old CD jewel case, took off the cover, and cut a piece of cork/rubber gasket material to fit where the CD would go. The gasket stuff I got at Home Depot in a 6x6 sheet - 1/16-inch thick. Then, I put the CD on the mat, playing side up.
By holding the edge of the jewel case, I can easily apply and buff the disc without it slipping or rotating. Works, and saves me a lot of time!
Again - I "believe" the sound on MOST discs to be warmer, fuller, and more "defined," in that the individual instruments seem to be more easily identified.
I checked and checked, and from what I'm able to determine, the Vivid first cleans off the mold release gunk, then smoothes out the top surface with some sort of anti-reflective coating. So far, there is no sign of any residue or change in any of the discs.
Well - at this point, I might as well go "whole hog," and admit that I do use one other "tweak." So I'm ready for the criticism!
I use a Staedtler Lumocolor 317 green marking pen on both outside and spindle-hole edges of most discs. These pens are made for overhead projection transparencies, and the like, so they're rather "plastic-friendly." Like the Vivid, I "believe" the green marking adds a bit of warmth and definition to the sound, though I don't have any scientific proof.
Again - I've read all horror and success stories about this, so I will put on a flak jacket and ready myself for a barrage of challenges. This is why I shy away from forums, but simply had to put my thoughts on this out for comment. Probably won't do it again!!!
Thanks for reading.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


"I use a Staedtler Lumocolor 317 green marking pen on both outside and spindle-hole edges of most disc"


Stoplite anyone?

Old tweaks, like old dogs, are often the best.


 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 556
Registered: Dec-03
Well said Jan, I like your style.

I have never tried any of the CD cleaner/enhancer products. I know John mentioned a product that had a cost of $45. I may sound like a broken record ( no pun intended, but how old I feel) but Mapleshade has a CD tweak called Mikro Smooth for $16.95. I can attest to other products they offer, and all their tweaks come with a 30 day money back guarantee.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rh1

Post Number: 254
Registered: Jun-04
I know many of you here listen to classical music, I was just wondering what etailers do you suggest for this type of music. I am hard pressed to find good selections locally
 

Anonymuss
Unregistered guest
Sorry, Mr. Vigne, but Stoplite is no longer made. The company folded earlier this year. I tried it, but after a year or so, it began to flake off, and that scared me. (as it should)
And to "vols" - go to Amazon or ArkivMusic to find more than you need. Nobody locally carries much in SACD format - and if you want reviews go to http://classicalcdreview.com to get good input.
And Rick Barnes - Vivid seems to get better customer reviews than Optrix and MikroSmooth, but that is, of course, subjective.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


My reference to Stoplite was more to the discussion of the product that had occurred several weeks ago when Larry R. mentioned using the product. I have many discs that I treated with Stoplite back in the early 90's that still seem to have no problem with the coating. But I would suspect some sort of production problems finally drove the product off the market.

Whether you will spend $16.95 or $45 on a tweak is similar to whether you will spend X on an Polk or Y on Quad. You have to decide what level you are comfortable with and how much you have to gain by not spending the money. As I said, does Pledge, at $3.49, sound as good as Vivid, at $45; you'll have to spend $48.49 to find out.



 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2250
Registered: Dec-03
Anonymuss,

Thank you. Surely no-one could think of flaming views so carefully expressed. I would loan you my flak jacket but it is full of holes.

I have the same sort of problem with green marker pens as I have with Vivid CD stuff. The problem is that I don't buy the explanation. It could, of course, be that the explanation itself is no good, and the product is OK, for some other reason. Or it could be me. Why green? Why not anything that absorbs stray red light from the laser? Surely black would be safest of all?

I think we would be well placed here to carry out the definitive consumer trial. We could invest a new box of CD-R discs, make two identical copies of Dark Side of the Moon and Mahler's 1st Symphony, get you or Classical 1 to treat one of the two in some way, make disc images of treated and untreated (maker not knowing which was which), post them on the internet (or burn CDs and post them), and see how many people can hear a difference, and, of those that do, see how many think one is better or worse than the other.

I am generally sceptical, as you notice. Is the effect of treatment audible in an untreated copy made from a treated original.....? Same as a treated copy made from an untreated original...? Seems to me it has to be, if the effect is there in the first place. What if you treat the copy of the treated disc etc.?? Do you get 30% better quality each time...? Without limit...? Does green marker pen add to the effect of spraying with Vivid, or replace it.....? Do these things work just as well in a computer reading the disc as in a player...? If so, you should be able to tell the difference between the files stored in any medium, and the computer would find differences. Yet digital copies are thought to be identical with the originals. If you can't burn the effect into a copy, how can you hear a difference in the first place?

I would tend to think it is important to start with a clean disc. If there is gunk on the disc in the first place, just clean it off, I should think. If I get rented DVDs that look like someone served porridge on them, I exhale on the disc to make a film of condensation, then wipe off the film and the gunk with a clean, non-abrasive, non-lint-shedding cloth, like a handkerchief, from inside to ouside, radially. This certainly cures mistracking in some cases. Apart from that, I have never experienced improved picture or sound quality. Perhaps I was not paying enough attention?

Not a rant. Just a can of worms.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2251
Registered: Dec-03
vols,

Everything depends on where is "locally".

Gramophone is a serious "classical" magazine and is very UK-centric but also reviews everything and lists record dealers all over the world, also mail order companies etc. It's like hifi mags, if you buy just one monthly issue and read the reviews and ads, there will be many leads. If you want to browse record stores, it helps to be in or near a big city, usually.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1620
Registered: Dec-03
john: just a thought!

but if the treatment only helps "during playback"

meaning that whatever it does helps the player play it better
then a copy from the internet means nothing because your
copy will not have the material on it.

a copy of the disk, then treated would be a fair trial,
would it not?

which would mean whoever is playing the disk on treir unit would need some!

the reason why i ask this is i can possably see a treated disk work
if it helped the player do something better but i don't see how a
digital copy would retain what the fluid is doing.

do you see what i'm getting at?

not saying your wrong but just asking the question!



 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 828
Registered: Aug-04
Kegger,

I had the same thought - you must have a good brain :-)
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1621
Registered: Dec-03
u know what they say rantz!
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 829
Registered: Aug-04
I do Kegger- and obviously, it must be true.

Like you say, a copy is only going to duplicate the digital information. The equipment cannot copy a coating!

If John's theory was correct, then the treatments would need to alter the digital information. From all I can gather from the information about these enhancers, is that they alter they way the information is read.

I recall years back that freezing CD's improved the audio quality. I never tried it.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ojophile

Toronto, ON

Post Number: 63
Registered: Jun-04
vols,

Amazon.com is a good source of classical CD's. Depending on what you mean by "locally", check out their shipping rates. Also, their music sampling (streaming audio) has improved. You can now sample all the tracks of a particular CD. My experience with amazon.ca (Canada) has been good so far.

I think the Old Dogs here have diverse listening tastes from classical to jazz to classic rock to anything-goes, so in any case, you're in good company.

Good luck. If you have any questions, feel free to post some more.



 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


The idea of treating a disc with Vivid or Pledge is to get a more accurate reading of the pits and flats. This is accomplished by cleaning the mold release compounds and then filling in the microscopic defects in the disc surface to increase the accuracy of the laser traveling through, registering the pit or flat and then traveling through once more. This means less error correction and less jitter. Reducing both of these functions has, for years, been a main effort of improving the sound from any CD or DVD no matter what the format or sampling rate. (There are other ways but these two have garnered extensive attention.) If you make a copy of the treated disc it should be copied with less error corection from the original disc. (As I understand the process of digital copying there is always an amount of error correction made when you copy one disc and then make a copy from the copied disc and so on until the concept of digital copies being perfectly identical is a farce. It may take 100 or 1000 copies but eventually there is not the same information on the copy as the original.) That copy would sound like the original if you had treated the CD-R before you copied it. Otherwise you may have less than an identical copy. If you treat that copy it will be read with less error correction. More like copying from the master. But at some point doesn't this get to the point of laughability to prove whether you hear an improvement? I would think if you need that much proof of the verasity of the product you have already convinced yourself of a bias in one direction or the other.
Might I suggest that any old dog that has $45 to spend on a CD treatment should try Vivid, or whatever treatment you would care to use, and any old dog that doesn't want to spend $45 not buy Vivid. Those that have tried the treatment can report to those who don't wish to pay for something they feel might not give any benefits. If the majority of those who use a treatment can report a benefit and say it is worth the amount of money they spent on it vs. another piece of music then it would seem to be a simple matter for those who have held back to adjust their beliefs and budget. Seems to me much easier and quicker than mailng mystery copies around the planet. Quite a few less variables to be questioned later also.
Now, on the other hand, if any of you would like to mail me a pair of Quads to listen to I would be happy to give my evaluation of those speakers. I will be waiting for the UPS delivery. Please send them express.


Kegger - I've been waiting for you to explain how Budwieser can improve the sound of a disc when you don't apply it to the disc. I seem to remember that was my experience with 18 year old Chivas. But I'm not certain, it all gets rather blurry toward the end of the evening.

I just ordered an octet of Svetlana Winged C 6L6's. I haven't put them in my amps yet but I will report the results when I do. So far of all the new stock tubes I've tried the best I've had are the Shuguang KT-66's that were marketed as Golden Dragons. The Golden Dragon brand is gone though one retailer told me the current Shuguang KT-66 was identical to the Golden Dragon. I've worked with too many salespeople who would tell me something like that when they had no idea whether it was true or not. So I went with the Svetlanas.



 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 834
Registered: Aug-04
Theorectically, I have to disagree. Error correction applies to the reading of the disc. Copying a treated disc will still only copy the available digital infromation from the original disc including any "fixed" defects. And defects, I would have thought would affect the flow of information (ie: information to be read) rather than affecting the quality of sound. Defects from dirty pits or scratches being fixed could naturally, be evident in a copy - making sound/and or video stutterless/and or no frozen pixels. But actual sound improvement - The tests using vivid were also used on new recordings.

But, I agree with Jan, that making digital copies and sending them back and forth is overkill. Either try it or not and report the findings - and John will either get out his Ack-Ack gun or not :-)
 

Anonymuss
Unregistered guest
Well, how about this? If one of you actually buys the Vivid "basic" at $45 - then sends portions of it out to three others - the cost will, obviously, be less. There should be enough Vivid to go around to four people - after all, it will treat 200 discs. 50 each. How about that? All you have to do is go to a drug store and buy some foam makeup applicators - the kind that they put in compacts, etc. - and some Kleenex Viva paper towels. That's basically what they use.
Now - four of you can do the testing. After coating and buffing a half-dozen or so discs, well, you can always send the unused portion back to the person who ordered it - and he/she can send the "unused portion" back to Walker Audio. IF you determine that it doesn't help.
That way, all four of you have direct evidence in your hands - not some discs that have been sent from somewhere else.
The instructions are simple: shake the bottle very well - apply two or three drops to the foam applicator, rub onto the disc, then take your Viva towel and buff off the liquid - turning the towel often - until you can no longer see any haze on the disc. That's it.
So - the big problem is getting three folks to cough up their share of the purchase, as I see it. Since you all seem rather close, that should be no problem, exceptions being shipping outside of the good old US of A. Well, now. . .
As the liquid looks very much like watered-down C-5 explosive, you can see the possibilities here, friends!
And by the way, whatever happened to the Pledge users? Anybody done that yet?
Back to my listening - have a fine night.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


I don't argue digital very well cause every time I do somebody who makes their living with it starts talking whatsagigs and megabytles. But none of the treatments I have ever seen promise to clean up scratches or turkey gravy. They are designed to produce results on a disc that is either new or has been treated well by its owner. They are not going to make the copy of "Aladin" from the rental store (that has been played with in and out of the DVD player [look daddy, it's sticking half in and half out but it's OK i shoved it back in with a peanut butter sandwich and a stick, here poochie take it to daddy, look he dropped it in the sand box and pooped on it] be anything other than what it is, boogered.


 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


Ano - How do you know what C-5 explosive looks like and does Mr. Ashcroft know about you?



 

Anonymuss
Unregistered guest
John A. - since you singled me out in an earlier post, I would just like to say this - the company that makes the product says that it removes the mold release compound (gives the laser a clearer path to read) and reduces static (a known cause of disc-reading problems) and then coats the disc with a fine film that reduces reflection and flattens the surface (again, making it easier for the laser to read the information). I don't think that this is a procedure that could do anything but help - but perhaps I'm not reading it correctly.
As to the green marker. Yes (blush) I agree that it might well be considered something that Vampires could well use in their nightly quests for good, red blood. But after using first CD Stoplite (worked, but not made anymore) and then the Staedtler pens (works even better - in my opinion - and stays put!) I'm personally convinced that it helps (read closely) a little bit. A little bit. Nothing major - but I've grown so used to "bad" sound from CDs that Anything that helps "a little bit" I welcome - cost be, uh, darned.
I have over 1,000 CDs, and about 70 SACDs now, and am rather frustrated because the SACDs say plainly "don't coat me!" They've already got some sort of coating on them. Oh, well. . .
But John, really - "flaming views?" That sort of rhetoric belongs in the movies, not on a nice, quiet audio forum, sir! Oh, dear, I'm getting upset again - and that means it is time for me to get off the forum and back to my stereo. Sorry.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ojophile

Toronto, ON

Post Number: 64
Registered: Jun-04

quote:

That copy would sound like the original if you had treated the CD-R before you copied it. Otherwise you may have less than an identical copy.


Can the human ear really detect these subtle deviations? Can one really detect a difference between an untreated and treated copy? I can't help but question statements like this because you have to be born with an extraordinary sense of hearing to sense deviations in sound. Jan, I don't mean any offense. I'm speaking as an amateur musician (one who chose to keep a day job years ago rather than pursue his dream), and even I couldn't hear the differences between an original CD and a copy. By "copy", I mean one that has been directly copied using a CD-copying/ripping software (Easy CD, NTI, Nero, etc.). Maybe I don't have extrasensitive ears, but I doubt these claims of having a less than perfect copy. Unless, of course, the original .wav data has been converted to a 128-kb MP3.

Digital data is digital data (or should it be data "are" data) From a technical perspective (I'm a self-employed programmer/analyst), I view the music being copied as digital data, no different than other forms of digital data that we deal with everyday. So how can data, whether musical, text, graphic, etc., that is represented as a series of 0's and 1's, as bits and bytes, lose their form when copied into another? One may argue that when converting image data to .jpg, .gif, .png, etc., the quality of the output varies. Yes, I agree with that. But a direct copy of a CD? The quality of the copy is more difficult to ascertain.

Will the CD treatment expose further the anomalies of old recordings? I am quite content with the CD reissues of old jazz recordings of Billie Holiday, Charlie Parker, Dave Brubeck, Bill Evans, etc., and some favorite 60's and 70's albums. While the sonic quality of these reissues is usually not better than their vinyl counterparts, they are still better substitutes if they are to be valued simply for their longer shelf life, portability, and ease of replication.

However, whether it's the overzealous remastering engineer or the digital technology's unforgiving accuracy, I have heard many anomalies of old recordings. The usual hiss, the overly bright mid-range, and the distorted sound. On some of the early classical CD reissues, you could hear on the headphones the faint rustling of paper as the musicians turn the pages! On Antonio Carlos Jobim's Stone Flower album, you could hear the man coughing and breathing quietly as he plays the electric piano and sings on "Brazil". On a Miles Davis CD, I can hear him purse and wet his lips in preparation for a solo. My point is, will a CD enhancer further expose these non-musical anomalies? Just wondering.

Cheers!
 

Anonymuss
Unregistered guest
Mr. Vigne - I once, long ago, served my country in a "special" branch of the Armed Forces, and thus had many chances to witness up close what C-5 looks like - and does. And yes, I'm sure the good Mr. Ashcroft has my record in hand by now.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2252
Registered: Dec-03
Anonymuss,

Sorry! When I wrote Surely no-one could think of flaming views so carefully expressed. my intended use of "flaming" was as a verb not an adjective, similar to no-one could think of attacking/criticising/ridiculing views etc, not no-one could think of blasted/stupid views etc.

"Flames" and "flaming" have a new meaning on internet fora (Ojo will understand; applause for "data are"). I am not fluent in this new language. Wars have been started over such musunderstandings according to "Eats shoots and leaves". I do apologise; entirely my fault.

Kegger,

I have been thinking about the question you ask, and I do not know the answer. But I am with Ojophile, I think. A file of digital information can be read with perfect accuracy. That is the best that a CD player and a computer can do; there is no more to be done, at least at that stage. After reading the file, it seems irrelevant to me whether you convert it to sound and listen, or write it again to make a copy, then convert and listen to that. Or make another copy from the first copy, and so on.

Seems to me we have to assume that these treatments are alledged to be doing something to the way the player reads the .aiff files or whatever on the disc. If this assumption is correct, then the treatments must be reducing errors in reading the file. The reduced number of errors must be there in a copy you make, just as much as in the sound you get. Of course you can get errors in writing, as well as reading.

I had this sort of reasoning in mind when I said that if the makers argued that the beneficial effect could not be heard on a copy of the treated disc, or on an .aiff file stored and transmitted by any means, we'd have them check mate.

Please correct me if this is the wrong way of looking at it. It seems to me that all this "treatment" business is applying ideas from analogue discs to digital ones. It is a bit like storing unused magnetic memory cards for a digital camera in the refrigerator because that's what we used to do to 35 mm emulsion film.

Clean is clean and you can have perfect cleanliness. You can also make perfect copies of digital files. This entire forum thread can be downloaded and copied any number of times, with perfect fidelity. Ojo, changing the file format is not relevant, I think. You do some processing when you change .tiff to .jpg or .gif. It is in the processing that the approximations and so on come in, and you can lose information irreversibly.

I suspect anyone reading who understands opto-electronics, or whatever it is, will think we are all crazy. I am just an old dog trying to understand all this by working from simple principles I think I understand. When I do that, I can't see any way these treatments could work. Except to clean a dirty disc. Or give a better read-out of a scratched one.

So if people report that they hear a difference, I am inclined to ask if they are quite sure that the difference is real. There is no disrespect in that. Sometimes our theories are wrong*. At other times we imagine things, like differences that are not there. Theory can make us think and listen more critically. Even wrong theories can do that. The main thing is that we are all free to try to criticize if we want to, and to communicate and to make up our own minds on the basis of what we experience ourselves, what other people report, and what they think, too.

"Science" is a word thrown around here from time to time. I think "science" is what you are left with when you have done everything you can think of in order to try to eliminate ways in which you could be fooling yourself. I think Richard Feynmann said that. It is important to remember that you could still be fooling yourself, and that someone else, or you yourself, might still be able to find a new way to show it.

I keep ending up with these grand philosophical conclusions. Sorry about that. I must seem a bit pretentious, I can see that.

But I still come down strongly on the side of trying to understand how things work. If possible. If we can't understand, it does not mean the thing is not real. Classical 1 said I obviously try to shoot down things I do not understand. That is a serious charge. A lot of this nocturnal ramble is my case for "not guilty".


* (footnote) Sometimes our theories are wrong.
I spent years with my amp balance control tipped slightly to the right channel, because my theory told me that would compensate for mild high-frequency loss in my right ear. Actually it made no difference, and my zeal about phasing is because I long held the incorrect view, as Gregory did, that stereo positioning comes from relative amplitudes of the two channels.
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Facebook

Shop Related Deals

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us