[SunByrne]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hirsch If you want to argue that "green pen" advocates aren't hearing what they report, without having tried it yourself, then your opinion is worth far less than that of those who have at least made the attempt to determine if it was snake oil or not in the only way that matters: listening.

Upon what basis are you making the judgement that I haven't tried it? I never said whether I had or hadn't tried it. Up to this point, you have no information about whether I have or haven't, so get off your high horse. You presume a great deal, particulary since you're chiding me for not having read carefully. Pot, kettle?

As a matter of fact, I have tried it. When I was an undergraduate, there was a guy on my dorm floor who claimed it made a big difference. I didn't believe him. So we got a few guys together and blind tested him, myself, and a half-dozen other guys on the hall. Nobody could do better than guessing at which CD had the green pen and which didn't. (I know, we're close to "DBT" here, so I'm sure I'll be branded a heretic, but whatever.)

Now, I'm not claiming that this was a super-scientific well-controlled test, but I certainly consider this useful evidence.

Quote:

BTW, I really would appreciate your not using "expectation" as a construct for people not hearing what you think they should. It has a rather precise meaning in psychology that tends to be lost in audio arguments. I'm an experimental psychologist working in drug development and I tend to get annoyed when technical terms in psychology are incorrectly applied.

I see. Because you're a big-shot "expert," you get to set the rules not only about what questions people are allowed to ask, but also about the specific word choices people are allowed to make? Thought Police, anyone?

The irony here is that I have a Ph.D. in experimental psychology (as well as degrees in engineering and computer science) and make my living generating, reviewing, and teaching experimental psychology. So what appears to be your attempt to one-up me based on credentials is completely wasted. Based on your location, I'm guessing you can pull out a NIDA or NIH or similar affiliation--don't bother. Either way, you should not get to be the final authority on what language we get to use, moderator or no.

I chose the term "expectation" exactly because I did not want to use a more precise technical term, as the lay use of "expectation" works very well in this context. I think aeberbach's response backs me up on this.


Now, I'd like to point out that *nowhere* did I say someone heard something that didn't exist. Nor did I ever claim that the green pen treatment doesn't work. I merely said I thought the empirical evidence is less than certain (which is evident on this thread: some people say they hear it, some say they don't), so therefore asking a question about the technical basis for the claim was meaningful.

Despite your contention this the only thing on these boards is "what people hear," I have seen useful and sometimes very detailed technical explanations on a variety of topics on this forum (e.g., schmatics for amps). So why in this case are technical questions out-of-bounds--they're perfectly fine, even routine, on many other threads!

But for simply suggesting a question was a legitimate one to ask, you jumped down my throat and suggested my opinion is worthless and that I leave the board. Wow.

I find that very heavy-handed. I'm a relative newbie to this forum, but one of the reasons I've felt comfortable here is that so far I've generally found people friendly and able to disagree amicably. If your goal is indeed to drive me away from reading head-fi (as you imply), you are doing a great job--though that strikes me as a strange goal for a moderator to have.

Quote:

Originally posted by chych I am sooooo out of this discussion

Indeed. If "DBT-free" also implies "you can't even suggest questions a moderator doesn't like," there's little point in staying.

 

[Hirsch]

Quote:

Originally posted by chych I am sooooo out of this discussion

I'm with you.

 

[Music Fanatic]

Quote:

Originally posted by qwerty870 I have not tried the green pen trick and therefore will not pass judgement, but I did use a black pen (designed to be used the same way as the green) that came with an auric illuminator kit. I could not consistently identify any positive results.

Use of a black pen can remove some types of CD copy protection. See this

 

[edstrelow]

The Princeton article makes several other important points:

1) Existing cd/cdrom systems have poor error correcting techniques, thes are are in fact what allow some of the copy rpotection scehmes described in the article to work.

2) The specs of cd's and cdroms are largely secret being held as trade secrets by the developers and presumably licensed to others who must also agree to keep the secrets.

No wonder there is so little informed discussion about cd perfomance even 20+ years after their introduction.

 

[aeberbach]

The "Red Book" standard costs $100 and is available from Philips. Yes, there is a confidentiality agreement - but is $100 and promising not to tell an obstacle for any manufacturer who wants to get it right? I think not. Besides that Philips transports are available to OEMs.

Head on over to http://www.licensing.philips.com/ if you'd like to get your own copy.

 

[edstrelow]

Disclosing trade secrets can lead to serious litigation, especially with companies like Phillips and Sony which have no shortage of lawyers on staff or retainer. These matters are proprietary information, kept secret for financial/business advantages.


Keeping the basic facts of digital sound under trade secret seriously limits public discussion of the technology and its limitations. This is not like basic science where most things end up in the public record. Even patented inventions are public. But call your invention a trade secret and you may keep it under wraps, except for reverse engineering.

I have not seen this point discussed in these forums, but much of what concerns contribtors to this site on issue of the quality of technology probably end up in this same commercial/technical netherworld.

The article cited above by music fanatic came from the Princeton Compter Department, so if these people still do not have all the facts about digital cd processing, we amateurs don't stand much chance.