[dvw]

There is no contradiction here. Each sample consists of 16 bit of data. Let's assume the data is 1001 1001 1001 1001. If the error happens at the MSB then the errored data becomes 0001 1001 1001 1001. More than half signal disappear. If error happens at the LSB, then the error is very low. Since you can't control the error position, the error is totally random.

Jitter is a different issue. I am just try to clarify bit error and error correction here since the information presented here is incomplete.

 

[chych]

Delays and jitter would be very minor anyway. Delays are nonexistent since data is buffered in the transport and jitter is only a function of how unsynced the clock between the DAC and buffer is (totally unrelated to the actual reading of the CD, a la green pen), and often the DAC and transport are very well synced.

And geez, get over the whole dropped bits and misinterpolated data idea, the amount of dropped bits is pretty much zero for any operational CD player and unscathed disk, and interpolated data is pretty much 100% accurate (even if they did miss bits, you would need a SIGNIFICANT amount to notice a change in sound, which is ridiculous for CD reading).

Where are the real technical arguments for the opposing side anyway.

 

[Hirsch]

Quote:

Originally posted by chych Where are the real technical arguments for the opposing side anyway.

In making statements of this kind, you really should attribute the quote. I believe this one came from one of the prosecutors in "The Church vs. Galileo".

Science can take a number of forms (I'm paraphrasing someone else, my apologies in advance since I can't remember who). One methodology is empirical observation. Simply observe the world and note unexpected types of behaviors. You can then form hypotheses about the reason for the way the world behaves that way, and test them. In some cases, the tests will work, others they won't. You then have to determine whether the initial observation was invalid, or if the test was insensitive to what you were actually looking at.

The absence of a technical explanation is meaningless in the presence of empirical observation. It simply means that the technical explanation may not yet exist.

 

[chych]

So believing in audio tweaks is basically like believing God (which I don't anyway).

 

[Hirsch]

Quote:

Originally posted by chych So believing in audio tweaks is basically like believing God (which I don't anyway).

No, believing or disbelieving in certain tweaks is simply a matter of trusting your senses (harder than it looks, as perceptual distortions are part of the sensory process). Disbelieving in a tweak without actually having tested it for yourself is the act of faith I was referring to. Certain people hold their understanding of science as dogma, without regard to empirical experience. In that sense, they are acting in much the same way as the church did in its prosecution of Galileo. "If it doesn't fit the dogma, it cannot be." Eventually, Galileo was vindicated. Eventually, some of the tweaks that have no current explanation based in "science" as we know it today will be vindicated as well. Some will also prove to be snake oil, or an inefficient application based on a partial understanding of whatever principles may happen to be involved.

In the meantime, listen to what's going on, and trust your ears. That's the ultimate test anyway. If it works for you, then it's a good tweak.

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally posted by chych Delays are nonexistent since data is buffered in the transport ...

You know, I keep seeing this, but I do believe it is a myth -- most CD players are real time, I.E. not buffered. The only one I know of is the Sony CDP-D11...

 

[SunByrne]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hirsch The absence of a technical explanation is meaningless in the presence of empirical observation. It simply means that the technical explanation may not yet exist.

Since many people question the validity of the empirical observation, I think asking for the technical explanation is, in fact, quite meaningful.

 

[Hirsch]

Quote:

Originally posted by SunByrne Since many people question the validity of the empirical observation, I think asking for the technical explanation is, in fact, quite meaningful.

Uh sure. Yeah. People can tell you what they hear. Why on earth would you expect the average listener to be able to explain the technical explanation behind any equipment they own? That tends to be the province of the designer, not the listener.

 

[edstrelow]

Well, would you buy equipment , with good technical reports, but which didn't sound good to you. I sure wouldn't.

On the other hand, technical explanations of equipent play a role for most people and I generally look for some physical explanation as to why some items of equipment or even recordings, do or do not sound/perform better than others.

If my ears and the technical explanation are in agreement, then I feel I am making a good decision and that I probably understand why the equipment is worth getting.

If they are in disagreement then I will generally go with my ears.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by SunByrne Since many people question the validity of the empirical observation, I think asking for the technical explanation is, in fact, quite meaningful.

You're assuming that a technical explanation exists. As Hirsch brought up, there are many examples, throughout history and even today, where humans can sense -- see, hear, feel, etc. -- a phenomenon, but are not able to explain why that phenomenon occurs. As science and technology progress, often we eventually have the ability to measure or deduce the cause.

 

[SunByrne]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF You're assuming that a technical explanation exists. As Hirsch brought up, there are many examples, throughout history and even today, where humans can sense -- see, hear, feel, etc. -- a phenomenon, but are not able to explain why that phenomenon occurs. As science and technology progress, often we eventually have the ability to measure or deduce the cause.

No, I'm not assuming one exists, I'm saying it's reasonable to ask for one in cases where the empirical evidence is debatable. Furthermore, in this case, numerous technical explanations have been offered, all of which look AT LEAST sketchy to me. The bit about reflected light causing read errors is totally unconvincing--ask any optical engineer.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hirsch Uh sure. Yeah. People can tell you what they hear. Why on earth would you expect the average listener to be able to explain the technical explanation behind any equipment they own? That tends to be the province of the designer, not the listener.

First, people can tell you what they *think* they hear, which turns out in many cases to be driven by their expectations. People have stated on this thread that they question the validity of perceived improvement of the green pen treatment. That's a reasonable thing to question, since the only evidence cited is anecdotal.

Second, nobody was asking "the average listener" to offer a technical explanation for how some piece of equipment works, chych was asking people advocating the green pen treatment for the technical basis of the claim that the green pen yields improvement. Since one can quite reasonably dispute the empirical basis for the claim, asking for the technical basis is not only reasonable, but if a good one cannot be procured, a pretty good reason for doubting the validity of the original claim.

If you want to say "green pen advocates shouldn't have to offer a technical explanation" combined with poor empirical evidence, go right ahead--but that's a really weak argument. In fact, denial of a causal explanation plus testimonials is exactly the kind of tactic used by psychics and other snake oil salesmen for centuries. I think it's reasonable to want something better.

 

[Hirsch]

Quote:

Originally posted by SunByrne First, people can tell you what they *think* they hear, which turns out in many cases to be driven by their expectations. People have stated on this thread that they question the validity of perceived improvement of the green pen treatment. That's a reasonable thing to question, since the only evidence cited is anecdotal. If you want to say "green pen advocates shouldn't have to offer a technical explanation" combined with poor empirical evidence, go right ahead--but that's a really weak argument. In fact, denial of a causal explanation plus testimonials is exactly the kind of tactic used by psychics and other snake oil salesmen for centuries. I think it's reasonable to want something better.

SunByrne,

I think you'd better go back and read some things pretty carefully. All that you can reasonable expect to get in a consumer forum is descriptions of what people hear. If there are technical reasons, they may or may not be presented, and when they are presented by a layman, they are often incomplete or incorrect. So what? In an audio forum, people tell you what they hear. If you don't find that to be useful information, I'd suggest that you visit other forums.

Nobody in this thread is trying to sell you anything. 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.

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. It's every bit as much "snake oil" as some of the wilder "technical explanations" you might hear.

 

[aeberbach]

We are not "consumers" in that sense. Consumers buy Bose. We're skeptical because we know all too often what seems too good to be true really is (see Bose). We like to think about how things work as evidenced by participation in this thread.

We are not aware of the meaning of "expectation" as it is defined in your field of specialization, only in the sense of everyday language.

I have the expectation that I should be able to question the magic qualities of green pens, looking for an explanation of how they work. A good starting point is certainly the people who say they do work! I further have the expectation that a moderator isn't going to invite me or others to go read another forum for doing so. More or less exactly on-topic in a thread with this title.

edstrelow says: "technical explanations of equipent play a role" and he's right. I want to know the technical explanation. Because when I tried applying pen to one of my duplicate CDs I heard nothing different - no, not a $20 magic green pen, but a black one (see page one this thread). Perhaps they are completely useless when applied to scratch-free CDs on a trouble-free transport. Maybe it was only back around 1987 that many of the first generation transports needed help and so the myth was born. Knowing just what the green pen is supposed to do might help pin that down.

 

[Hirsch]

Quote:

Originally posted by aeberbach We are not "consumers" in that sense. Consumers buy Bose. We're skeptical because we know all too often what seems too good to be true really is (see Bose). We like to think about how things work as evidenced by participation in this thread.

Actually, we are consumers in that sense. An educated consumer is still a consumer.

Quote:

I have the expectation that I should be able to question the magic qualities of green pens, looking for an explanation of how they work. A good starting point is certainly the people who say they do work! I further have the expectation that a moderator isn't going to invite me or others to go read another forum for doing so. More or less exactly on-topic in a thread with this title.

You have every right to question the qualities of any tweak, and search for explanations. You do not have the right to expect to receive those explanations in a technically meaningful sense from the end user, particularly when it is not even clear that the explanation exists. Further, it's very poor form to question what someone else hears. When all is said and done, that's the main information that we exchange here. Questioning what someone else hears without having tried it is even poorer. This does not apply to you, as you've tried the tweak and found it didn't work for you. That's completely valid and an important point worth making. However, just because you didn't hear an effect does not change the reports of others who did hear a difference. Some of the others posting to this thread have not even made the attempt.

Quote:

edstrelow says: "technical explanations of equipent play a role" and he's right. I want to know the technical explanation. Because when I tried applying pen to one of my duplicate CDs I heard nothing different - no, not a $20 magic green pen, but a black one (see page one this thread). Perhaps they are completely useless when applied to scratch-free CDs on a trouble-free transport. Maybe it was only back around 1987 that many of the first generation transports needed help and so the myth was born. Knowing just what the green pen is supposed to do might help pin that down. [/B]

I'd love to know why they work too. However, I'm not about to kid myself that I know more than I do and post nonsense about it. I can post about what I hear. That's my limit except in certain areas where I have greater expertise. I have absolutely no doubt that you heard exactly what you reported. It would be nice if those who hear otherwise receive a similar courtesy. Once we reach that point, we can explore differences in what we did, and the nature of what we heard, and perhaps even reach some sort of conclusions.

However, casting doubts upon what others hear lead in a completely opposite direction. A possible argument such as "What? You didn't hear an effect of the green pen? You're deaf!!!!" is both insulting and leads nowhere. So does the argument "There's no reason for this to have an audible effect. Therefore, you didn't hear what you thought you did." Neither of these latter arguments are going to produce a worthwhile discussion...just an endless cycle of useless posts until the thread is locked.

 

[chych]

I am sooooo out of this discussion