[JaZZ]

Hi Anders

Quote:

...I wondered a little about your sound edited albums, perhaps you had edited them to sound optimal in your current system, but I assume that then more editing than crossfeed should be required.

All of the recordings have been left as they are, just crossfeeding was done, which may make for a minor alteration of sonic balance now and then, but generally is rather neutral and most notably doesn't taylor the sound to my headphone setup in any way.

Quote:

I have never treated CDR's before and it is hard to see that these should differ from CDs. Maybe, black material could make a difference and one part of the tweak is to paint the edge black, maybe not necessary if the disc already is black and making the tweak less effective than with normal discs.

It's funny: You remember, I have sent you five black Fujifilm CD-Rs and one silvery TDK CD-R. All of the «original» references are TDK CD-Rs. Now the recording which made the most obvious difference (PIL) was on the silvery TDK disc, hence the same as the «original» (in fact both are burned from the very same wave files), whereas the five others effectively were burned on different media. So one would rather expect them to cause the greater difference.

Next time I'll send you exclusively rock recordings and silvery discs to avoid confusion!

.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrith /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here's an interesting test to try: Do treated CDs rip faster in EAC (with zero errors)? If so, there probably is something to it (the data can be read from the CDs error-free at a higher rate).

Those are the test results:


EAC, secure mode; test sample: «PIL - Compact Disc» on two TDK CD-Rs from the same spindle

Untreated CD: run 1: 4'22", Tracks 1-7 100%, track 8 99%; run 2: exactly the same

Treated CD: run 1: 4'39", all 100%; run 2: 4'38", all 100%

The treated CD was significantly quiter during ripping.


EAC, secure mode; test sample: «Radiohead - In Rainbows» on 1) TDK CD-R (untreated disc) and 2) Fujifilm CD-R (treated disc)

Untreated CD: 4'41", 100% except for track 7 (99%)

Treated CD: 4'40", 100% except for track 7 (99%)

Both CDs made about the same noise during ripping

Error correction on track 7 with both CDs is an interesting correlation (but most likely accidental)


Note that 100% or almost 100% accurate rips such as above are normal on my computer.
.

 

[ffrr]

id love to see this put through diffmaker or a null test.

this hobby keeps getting crazier and crazier! seems like some folks have more money than sense, and the designers of some of these things keep developing ways to seperate the moremoney/lesssense folks from their money. dont know if this one is BS, but I am curious to try. hell, ive sure got enough bad cds.



ive tried so many tweaks, so many times ive failed to see any improvements with anything other than tweaks that were grounded in good scientific research(vibration control definitely makes a difference as do room treatments)

id gladly pay someone to cut one of my cds for me, pay shipping as well. (I have duplicates of several waterlily acoustics discs(Kavi is a good friend of mine)

 

[TheMarchingMule]

^ Argh, you were so close to resurrecting this thread on a Sunday.

 

[ffrr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMarchingMule /img/forum/go_quote.gif ^ Argh, you were so close to resurrecting this thread on a Sunday.

point being what exactly

 

[BadassBob]

How does this compare to your lossless music file? Obviously there are no lasers there reading the data...

 

[edstrelow]

Always good to see a report in this forum by someone who has actually tried the tweak in question rather than one of the many jacko's who try to argue that because their theories of audio don't allow for such things, tweaks cannot possibly make a difference.

Two points I would make about these results. Firstly, that since the main purpose of trimming the edges of CD's with this lathe is to reduce any disc wobble, (which anyone with an out-of balance car tire can figure out) if the test discs are all fairly true at the outset I wouldn't expect there to be much effect. So if JaZZ had good discs at the outset them one wouldn't expect much difference between test and control.

That is at least as regards the "trueing aspect" of this lathe. As regards the cutting the edges at an angle I have no particular idea why the makers of this machine did this. Presumably they though it made a difference, or more prosaically, possibly they couldn't easily get a blade set up in a position to cut the disc flat.

As regards blackening the edges I believe this is done partly to seal the edges after the cutting. However, painting the edges of CD's has been around for donkeys' years, with some arguing for green paint, supposedly to absorb stray infra red light. Auric polsh also comes with a black pen to paint the edges and the clear plastic in the center.

I also note that JaZZ does some processing to his discs which may have an impact on results, namely applying crossfeed. This generally means blending the left and right stereo signals to varying degrees as well as other proprietary tricks and may reduce what I personally seem to hear as one of the advantages of this lathe, namely an increase in channel separation and better localization. Blending the stereo channel will, of course, tend to minimize stereo and may tend to minimize any stereo enhancement. As well since JaZZ employs crossfeed he presumably does not care much for enhanced stereo so he may either not be listening for it, or like it if he hears it.

Neverthless thanks to Jazz for adding some light on this topic.