[analogsurviver]

   
-The core idea in the Norwegian legislation on marketing is that claims made need to be verifiably true (Now, claiming that something 'may' provide some beneficial effect or that 'some claim...' it provides same is OK.)
 
What shoots the Ultima Mat firmly north of the wall is claims like 'has improved bass articulation' and 'has improved high frequency linearity' which are both easily measured and verified - and it would surprise me big time if they were able to produce any such documentation.
 
The gobbledegook on the subtle improvements gained by aligning the mat with the (arbitrarily printed) label would probably pass; as would most of the pseudo-science; what does them in is the hard, precise claims that the mat can do something which would blow digital signal theory out of the water if it indeed worked as advertised.
 
As for static buildup in the disc - even if the mat should in fact convert static buildup to heat faster than the disc itself could - why would it be significant? (This is not a rhetorical question; I am genuinely curious) - the disc is, after all, being read optically.
 
Oh, and I agree that CDs (well, any media) should be handled carefully to remain as pristine as possible and that the lower circle of hell is reserved for high-end cable salesmen.

I see.
 
Trouble is - CD mats DO improve sound much the same way as described for the Ultima. And no, measurements (so far) could not find anything conclusive - but listening will leave no doubt whatsoever. If you can hear ( disc played real time, not ripping for x times longer than the recording, in order to get good reading result ) it but science can not (yet) provide meaningful measurement(s) that would officially back up the claims - what does the (Norwegian) legislation say then in such a case ? 
 
Regarding electrostatics in CD replay - it can attract dust particles to disc and transport (obviously not beneficial ) - and even without any dust (impossible in real life ), eliminating statics does have positive effects on sonics. Some of the claims can be read about here (never seen or heard it in real life ):
 http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0213/orb_audio_sakura_destat.htm
If you still play vinyl, you might have Zerostat or similar anti static gun - this works in a pinch. And the mentioned method of gently pressing the CD between one folded sheet of kitchen aluminium foil will also do the trick - with the reservation of possible slight damage to recorded side ( FAR lower than by simply (re)placing the disc to and from some of the atrocious packagings CD case designers are bombarding us with - OK, for aesthetic reasons OK, but I place the CDs from ANY "design" case to normal CD jewel case - and that together with original case takes twice the place required for storage.
 
What can I say - use your ears. Or better - your spouse's. Women generally hear better than men - and are, USUALLY, NOT preconditioned with notions how something should sound - almost total lack of expectation bias.
 
Now, don't spoil the experiment by calling her to bring the kitchen aluminium foil to the listening room - go and get it yourself, so that she can't see what you will be doing. For hard the core ABXers - BLINDFOLD HER ! 
 

And play her favourite CD as usual - and then discharged. If your CD tray is plastic - and you own antistatic gun - "zap" that one too ... - SLOWLY. Rapid "zapping" any of the antistatic guns produces arcing and achieves exactly opposite from the desired result - take note.
 
I am curious what the ladies will have to say...
 
DISCLAIMER :
The cost of kitchen aluminium foil required is below 10 cents - and I am not affiliated with any of the vendors, mines etc, involved to produce the said foil.

 

[Phishin Phool]

What good will cd-mats and other voo-doo do for me when I am still unable to block the gravitational effects of the moon which I am certain must be affecting the shape of the sound waves travelling to my ear. When are they going to get a fix on that??  

 

[OddE]

 
Trouble is - CD mats DO improve sound much the same way as described for the Ultima. And no, measurements (so far) could not find anything conclusive - but listening will leave no doubt whatsoever. If you can hear ( disc played real time, not ripping for x times longer than the recording, in order to get good reading result ) it but science can not (yet) provide meaningful measurement(s) that would officially back up the claims - what does the (Norwegian) legislation say then in such a case ? 

 
-The Marketing Control Act is pretty clear on that issue; here's section 3:
 
"Documentation shall be available to substantiate factual claims made in marketing, including as to the properties or effect of products. The documentation shall be in the possession of the advertiser at the time that the marketing takes place."
 
So, short version - unless you have proof it works as you claim, making the claim in a marketing context is illegal. Now, lawyers can (and probably do!) argue what both 'documentation', 'substantiate', 'properties' or 'effect' really mean - but if the act is to carry any weight, the requirements for the documentation must be quite stringent.
 
The workaround is to include blurb from 'satisfied customers' and let them make the more outlandish claims.
 
Oh, and I do have an antistat mat for my turntable - that is a quite different cup of tea.
 
Obviously, static attracts dust - but then again, as long as there is not enough dust build-up to fool the two-layered error correction embedded in the CD track into interpolation, there really shouldn't be any audible difference to my closed mind.
 
Now, the missus is an engineer and a skeptic, but I could try the experiment on a colleague who is firmly in what I somewhat tongue-in-cheekly call the faith-based audiophile camp - he'll probably WANT to hear a difference; I do agree that with my initial bias, I'd probably be inclined to not hear any difference at all even if there was one.

 

[MacacoDoSom]

The Power Of Imagination...
 
Every time I power on my audio system the sound gets better... all the time... every day its getting better... I love it...
 
has it changed over time? maybe... or maybe not... one fact is known, it's getting older... maybe older is better...

 

[MacacoDoSom]

enhanced image dimensionality and transient clarity. The noise floor was blacker and deeper, as if layers of grunge were being washed away.
 
$350

 

[analogsurviver]

   
-The Marketing Control Act is pretty clear on that issue; here's section 3:
 
"Documentation shall be available to substantiate factual claims made in marketing, including as to the properties or effect of products. The documentation shall be in the possession of the advertiser at the time that the marketing takes place."
 
So, short version - unless you have proof it works as you claim, making the claim in a marketing context is illegal. Now, lawyers can (and probably do!) argue what both 'documentation', 'substantiate', 'properties' or 'effect' really mean - but if the act is to carry any weight, the requirements for the documentation must be quite stringent.
 
The workaround is to include blurb from 'satisfied customers' and let them make the more outlandish claims.
 
Oh, and I do have an antistat mat for my turntable - that is a quite different cup of tea.
 
Obviously, static attracts dust - but then again, as long as there is not enough dust build-up to fool the two-layered error correction embedded in the CD track into interpolation, there really shouldn't be any audible difference to my closed mind.
 
Now, the missus is an engineer and a skeptic, but I could try the experiment on a colleague who is firmly in what I somewhat tongue-in-cheekly call the faith-based audiophile camp - he'll probably WANT to hear a difference; I do agree that with my initial bias, I'd probably be inclined to not hear any difference at all even if there was one.

Thank you for the clarification - good to know.
 
You mentioned yourself the two-layered error correction embedded into CD track - both mat and antistatic treatment of CD (integrated in that super duper mat...) try as hard as possible that this does not get forced into interpolation. Here "better, more delineated bass , extended treble, etc" originate from. By reducing if not completely eliminating this error correction to be triggered. Not from some voodoo.
 
Ok, as your missus falls into UNUSUAL category ( which still does not preclude her as being a possible candidate for the test ), you can try your faith-based colleague - but DON'T tell him what will be compared - just ask him what version, if any, sounds preferable to him. Blind or blindfolded testing still applies, of course. 

 

[Phishin Phool]

  enhanced image dimensionality and transient clarity. The noise floor was blacker and deeper, as if layers of grunge were being washed away.
 
$350

Thank you - the check is in the mail.
Somewhere in heaven the inventor of the pet rock is smiling.

 

[Roly1650]

-The Marketing Control Act is pretty clear on that issue; here's section 3:

"Documentation shall be available to substantiate factual claims made in marketing, including as to the properties or effect of products. The documentation shall be in the possession of the advertiser at the time that the marketing takes place."

So, short version - unless you have proof it works as you claim, making the claim in a marketing context is illegal. Now, lawyers can (and probably do!) argue what both 'documentation', 'substantiate', 'properties' or 'effect' really mean - but if the act is to carry any weight, the requirements for the documentation must be quite stringent.

The workaround is to include blurb from 'satisfied customers' and let them make the more outlandish claims.

Oh, and I do have an antistat mat for my turntable - that is a quite different cup of tea.

Obviously, static attracts dust - but then again, as long as there is not enough dust build-up to fool the two-layered error correction embedded in the CD track into interpolation, there really shouldn't be any audible difference to my closed mind.

Now, the missus is an engineer and a skeptic, but I could try the experiment on a colleague who is firmly in what I somewhat tongue-in-cheekly call the faith-based audiophile camp - he'll probably WANT to hear a difference; I do agree that with my initial bias, I'd probably be inclined to not hear any difference at all even if there was one.

Wouldn't there also be the more fundamental issue of how a static charge can build up in a cd while being played? There is no contact whatsoever so what is rubbing against what to induce static? And how could the cd and whatever it's rubbing against survive the process for any more than a limited number of plays?

I found with vinyl, where there is physical contact, that an increase in humidity local to the turntable was as effective as anything at combating static. That can be achieved with a free pot and some free water! The Watts Parastatik used much the same principle, a wet foam inner surrounded by an open cell foam outer with microfiber cover. Very effective. A local ionic fan can also do the same thing, but cd's, I don't know, can't say I've ever noticed any static build up after play and I get zapped by all sorts of things, even a bed frame, so I've got this filed under bogus.

 

[KeithEmo]

Here in the US, our "truth in advertising" enforcement is based to a large extent on "damage" or "risk of harm". We do have specific requirements that are enforced about claims on food, and on medicine, and about the safety of consumer products, but on other types of claims you usually need some sort of claim that someone got hurt or cheated because of the false or misleading information. It is also usually necessary to prove that actual false information was (deliberately) provided and, furthermore, that some person or group is interested enough to file complaints and encourage the government to actually take action.
 
I looked at the description of that mat (which I agree isn't very likely to improve a digital signal), and I didn't see any specific claims that could be proven to be deliberate lies. They didn't say it lowers THD, or reduces the BERT errors on a disc; instead they made vague claims like "makes imaging more holographic" - which would be pretty hard to disprove (or to prove) because there is no measurement that I am aware of for "how holographic it is" - and the opinions of any number of listeners, without measurements to back them up, are just opinions.  They made a bunch of claims that, while they sound "good", can't be proven or disproven... so they're basically safe from being "legally caught actually lying". In fact, I'm sure they do have testimonials from gullible customers claiming that they do indeed hear a difference. At that point, it's more like claiming that your make the best tasting soda in the world..... it's not a lie but merely an "un-fact".
 
Beyond even that, however, there is no "interested party" out there who would apply pressure to the government to even investigate those claims. (If there was a competitor who made mats that actually did make a difference, then they might pressure the government to investigate the false claims of their competitor. If it were a choking hazard to small children, or gave off toxic vapors that might reasonably poison someone, any number of government agencies would investigate. However, as it sits now, our government agencies share the sentiments of one poster here: "It really doesn't matter if a company takes advantage of a few gullible audiophiles; caveat emptor.") Now, if they had sold a bunch of their mats to people based on those false claims, then those people had sued them for "false advertising", then you would have a case. However, I assume they were smart enough to cheerfully refund the money of their dissatisfied customers, which leaves only satisfied customers. (So in fact there's nobody left to claim that they were cheated out of money because of the false claims.... so "no harm was done".)
 
Unfortunately, it's even more insidious than that. Once you offer a consumer their money back if they're not satisfied, a certain "mental logic" kicks in, where they think "It must work. If it didn't work, then everybody would send it back." This, in turn, makes them more biased to believe that a difference must exist - and so to be more likely to imagine that they hear a difference even where none exists.)
 
Quote:

  Wow. The Ultima Mat mentioned in the 24 vs 16 bit thread comes with marketing blurb which is way over the top - even by the standards of the most -ahem- esoteric of audio kit suppliers.
 
It would be interesting to report them to the Better Business Bureau and see what happened; presumably US legislation on marketing is a bit more lax than here in Norway, but basically - most of their description of what the mat is and does would, strictly speaking, be illegal around here.
 
Matter of fact, the only parts of the description which would pass muster is the claim that it is 20% of the thickness of a CD (if true, obviously) and the price.

 

[cel4145]

I see.

Trouble is - CD mats DO improve sound much the same way as described for the Ultima. And no, measurements (so far) could not find anything conclusive - but listening will leave no doubt whatsoever. If you can hear ( disc played real time, not ripping for x times longer than the recording, in order to get good reading result ) it but science can not (yet) provide meaningful measurement(s) that would officially back up the claims - what does the (Norwegian) legislation say then in such a case ? 

When you say "listening will leave no doubt whatsoever," you mean ABX testing? I bet not.

And yes. A disc could be played in "real time" over a digital connection to a computer, saved, and the digital signal could could be compared with and without the mat.

 

[analogsurviver]

When you say "listening will leave no doubt whatsoever," you mean ABX testing? I bet not.

And yes. A disc could be played in "real time" over a digital connection to a computer, saved, and the digital signal could could be compared with and without the mat.

Yes, I DO mean ABX testing - and have promised in 24bit thread - at dealer's, he is going to test me, I test him. ASAP, hopefully within a week, when he has the first "hole" in the schedule. 
 
But at this proposition, all I heard at first from him over the phone was laughter, then he tried to persuade me it is a complete loss of time ( I agree - wholeheartedly so ) - only when I explained it to him that nothing else might convince you Doubting Thomases, he grundgedly agreed. 
 
The things I do for love science : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF-eWkKMBns
 
And I will upload a few CD rips with and without the mat, limited to 30 seconds, as I want you to know exactly which commercially pressed CD  was ripped (all the numbers...)  but limitation in time is to avoid copyright etc problems. It would be easier for me to upload the whole track.
 
My PC does not have S/PDIF input to be fed from the regular CD player - which would be the best way to do. I will use Yamaha CRW-F1E external burner connected trough USB for ripping.

 

[wakibaki]

 
But at this proposition, all I heard at first from him over the phone was laughter, then he tried to persuade me it is a complete loss of time ( I agree - wholeheartedly so ) - only when I explained it to him that nothing else might convince you Doubting Thomases, he grundgedly agreed. 

 
So you and this person are going to achieve an unbiased result?
 
Don't even bother. Just lie, it'll be a lot less trouble.

 

[analogsurviver]

   
So you and this person are going to achieve an unbiased result?
 
Don't even bother. Just lie, it'll be a lot less trouble.

Yes - because both know how a CD sounds without and with CD mat. And I have blindfolds (some 3-4 of them) for such cases - for years.
 
No, I do not lie. And I do not intend to change that - ever.
 
He laughed for a good reason. HE laughed at me when I first presented him with the idea that a CD mat could make a lick of a difference ...- that was some 7 years ago.
 
You will be able to download those rips, named TrackXa and TrackXb and compare them all by yourselves - and after a reasonable time, I will reveal the statistics.
 
You will outnumber us two by X:2 ratio anyway...

 

[bigshot]

Are you just going from thread to thread talking about CD mats? Honestly, give it a break.

 

[OddE]

Wouldn't there also be the more fundamental issue of how a static charge can build up in a cd while being played? There is no contact whatsoever so what is rubbing against what to induce static?

 
-Air. (Yup, that'll do. Not in any significant way, that is - but a CD could conceivably receive a static charge simply by being spun in air. (Though I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the spindle was grounded just in case, anyway.)