# No kidding...This is the Ultimate Tweak!!  The Audio Desk System



## Brandon_Ottawa

I recently came across a few threads that mentioned a machine called the Audio Desk System. It's a belt driven lathe that bevels a 38 degree angle into the outer edge of a CD. I was very intrigued when a respected head-fier assigned the unit a 10+ tweaking value. 

 10+? Hmmm...Well, I took the bait and placed an order on Music Direct. I got the last one at $550 (immediately after placing my order they raised their price to $650). I know the price seems extreme, but I swear it's worth every penny. After cutting my discs and applying the supplied black marker the sonics improved 10% easily on some discs. I hear things that I've never heard before on fimilar recordings. I've listened to Nirvana - Unplugged in New York about 1000 times...but on the 1001st time I heard the clarity, detail, and transparency that I've never heard before. It seemed SACD-like. 

 I must mention that my discs have been 1. cut with the Audio Desk, 2. marked with the Audio Desk marker, 3. washed with dish washing solution, 4. treated with Mikro-Smooth, 5. treated Walker's Vivid, and then 6. spun in the Bedini. The Audio Desk with the marker offers the most significant improvement by far. 10+ for sure.

http://www.amusicdirect.com/products...p?sku=ADESKSYS


----------



## meat01

What does the 38 degree bevel do that enhances the sound?


----------



## Welly Wu

You ain't gettin' me to cut none of my discs...


----------



## Brandon_Ottawa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* 
_What does the 38 degree bevel do that enhances the sound?_

 

Sorry, It's actually 36.

http://www.audiodesksysteme.de/index.php?kat=10_16

 Taken from Audio Desk...

 "Light reflections disrupt the sound

 Even high-end equipment for the highest of demands is powerless against light scatter in CDs. Laser beams are reflected numerous times and stray this way and that over the CD's surfaces. This audibly affects the reproduction. The sound loses its clarity and transparency. The beam diffusion cannot be avoided by error correction. 

 Does green or black work? 
 A hot tip in audio expert circles is the colouring of the CD's edge with a felt pen, to absorb the light scatter. The effect unfortunately doesn't deliver on its promise. Green as a complimentary colour to the red laser should bring better results, this is however often not the case as many lasers work with the infra-red spectrum. 

 Simple and effective: the 36° bevel

 Turning round and absorption
 In exhaustive tests biochemist Dr. Erich Schrott and engineer Wolfgang Schneider have looked for ways to eliminate the disruptive reflections. They found an amazingly simple, yet highly effective, tuning method. The CD's outer edge is bevelled and works as a trap for the light scatter. Black colouring absorbs additional misrouted laser light. An edge angle of 36° brings audibly the best results."


----------



## grinch

hahah sure seems like an interesting way to spend money. personally, for $550 i'd rather have more music. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 nirvana's unplugged album sounds really impressive to me too, my copy hasn't been "trimmed" around the edges though.


----------



## Wmcmanus

Brandon sent a PM to me the other day asking some questions about his new Audio Desk, but this wasn't until _*after*_ he made his purchase. Little did I know that my comments here at head-fi had influenced him! (I just did a quick search and found my 10+ rating in the archives... it seemed familiar but I wasn't 100% sure). 

 I'm always hesitant about these sorts of tweeks myself, especially the high priced ones because we have a tendency to want to justify our investment. I've been around long enough in high-end audio to know that nobody is really immune from this, and thus I am hesitant to recommend something that most other observers are likely to scoff at. In other words, the "I bought it so you must" arguments are really tiring. And to be honest, the main reason I bought my Audio Desk was that I got a dealer demo for $400 and I had a Audiogon friend who was willing to buy it from me for what I paid for it if I wasn't happy with it, so it was a no risk proposition. But once it was in my hands, that was the end of any thinking about flipping it! 

 In short, the bevelled edges provide audible improvements in nearly every aspect of sound. The player has a 'better' (more perfect) disc to read which reduces the effects of jitter. In particular, it tightens the bass just a tad, allows you to hear details that you've missed a thousand times before (as Brandon mentioned) and also reduces the tendency for older discs to have a digital glare in the upper frequencies. I've found that the improvements tend to be greater for older, more poorly recorded, discs. I'd agree that it _can_ increase the sound quality by the equivalent of the difference between the redbook and SACD layers on a hybrid disc, but this is not necessarily so as it depends a lot on the recording.

*Proof is in the pudding offer:*

 I've got a couple of dozen duplicate discs in my CD collection (accidents do happen), and will be happy to put together a sampler package that can be sent around for those who are interested in hearing the effects (or lack thereof) of the Audio Desk Systeme for themselves. 

 The package will go out to Doug (ServinginEcuador) first (he's in California at the moment) because I know that he has been interested. Each person can keep it for no more than a week and then send it on. No formal rules, just common courtesy would be expected (i.e., treat the discs as though they were your own).

 Here are the discs that will be included (in each case, there would be an Audio Desk bevelled disc and unbevelled disc):

 Acoustic Alchemy - Against the Grain
 Caribbean Jazz Project - The Gathering
 Charles Mingus - Mingus, Mingus, Mingus
 Choral Concert - Verleih uns Frieden gnadiglich (binaural recording)
 Mozart - Sinfonia Concertante in E-flat Major - Midori, et. al. (SACD only)
 Sinatra-Basie - An Historic Musical First
 The Ultimate Tony Bennett (SACD only)
 Joe Satriani - Engines of Creation (SACD only)
 Alexis Korner's Blues Incorporated - R&B from the Marquee (MFSL gold disc)
 Magical Musicals - Eric Kunzel & Cincinnati Pops Orchestra (Telarc)

 I'll also include The Beatles - Revolver, but both copies are scuffed up pretty badly from years of use and abuse. 

 I can also include a black marker as well as small bottles of Auric Illuminator and Walker's Audio Vivid along with pads and tissues that are used to apply these solutions. I'll treat a couple of the sample discs with the black marker and Vivid, but will leave the majority of them untreated. Each person who receives the package can then use these solutions on a couple of their own discs as they see fit. However, to best control for the effects caused by the Audio Desk trimmmer alone, it is important not to treat any of the discs that are included in the package.

 If necessary, we can start a fresh thread to keep track of the whereabouts of the package, but in general we should coordinate via PM.


----------



## Brandon_Ottawa

Wow! This is a very generous offer! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* 
_Brandon sent a PM to me the other day asking some questions about his new Audio Desk, but this wasn't until *after* he made his purchase. Little did I know that my comments here at head-fi had influenced him! (I just did a quick search and found my 10+ rating in the archives... it seemed familiar but I wasn't 100% sure). 

 I'm always hesitant about these sorts of tweeks myself, especially the high priced ones because we have a tendency to want to justify our investment. I've been around long enough in high-end audio to know that nobody is really immune from this, and thus I am hesitant to recommend something that most other observers are likely to scoff at. In other words, the "I bought it so you must" arguments are really tiring. And to be honest, the main reason I bought my Audio Desk was that I got a dealer demo for $400 and I had a Audiogon friend who was willing to buy it from me for what I paid for it if I wasn't happy with it, so it was a no risk proposition. But once it was in my hands, that was the end of any thinking about flipping it! 

 In short, the bevelled edges provide audible improvements in nearly every aspect of sound. The player has a 'better' (more perfect) disc to read which reduces the effects of jitter. In particular, it tightens the bass just a tad, allows you to hear details that you've missed a thousand times before (as Brandon mentioned) and also reduces the tendency for older discs to have a digital glare in the upper frequencies. I've found that the improvements tend to be greater for older, more poorly recorded, discs. I'd agree that it can increase the sound quality by the equivalent of the difference between the redbook and SACD layers on a hybrid disc, but this is not necessarily so as it depends a lot on the recording.

*Proof is in the pudding offer:*

 I've got a couple of dozen duplicate discs in my CD collection (accidents do happen), and will be happy to put together a sampler package that can be sent around for those who are interested in hearing the effects (or lack thereof) of the Audio Desk Systeme for themselves. 

 The package will go out to Doug (ServinginEcuador) first (he's in California at the moment) because I know that he has been interested. Each person can keep it for no more than a week and then send it on. No formal rules, just common courtesy would be expected (i.e., treat the discs as though they were your own).

 Here are the discs that will be included (in each case, there would be an Audio Desk bevelled disc and unbevelled disc):

 Acoustic Alchemy - Against the Grain
 Caribbean Jazz Project - The Gathering
 Charles Mingus - Mingus, Mingus, Mingus
 Choral Concert - Verleih uns Frieden gnadiglich (binaural recording)
 Mozart - Sinfonia Concertante in E-flat Major - Midori, et. al. (SACD only)
 Sinatra-Basie - An Historic Musical First
 The Ultimate Tony Bennett (SACD only)
 Joe Satriani - Engines of Creation (SACD only)
 Alexis Korner's Blues Incorporated - R&B from the Marquee (MFSL gold disc)
 Magical Musicals - Eric Kunzel & Cincinnati Pops Orchestra (Telarc)

 I'll also include The Beatles - Revolver, but both copies are scuffed up pretty badly from years of use and abuse. 

 I can also include a black marker as well as small bottles of Auric Illuminator and Walker's Audio Vivid along with pads and tissues that are used to apply these solutions. I'll treat a couple of the sample discs with the black marker and Vivid, but will leave the majority of them untreated. Each person who receives the package can then use these solutions on a couple of their own discs as they see fit. However, to best control for the effects caused by the Audio Desk trimmmer alone, it is important not to treat any of the discs that are included in the package.

 If necessary, we can start a fresh thread to keep track of the whereabouts of the package, but in general we should coordinate via PM._


----------



## ampgalore

Not another one. Wasn't there a thread about placing a rainbow sticker on CDs that made "dramatic" improvements in CD playback, heard things never heard before...

 For $500 I would rather spend it on a new CD player or buy more CDs.


----------



## gpalmer

I'd be interested but I think I'll be out of the country by then. If it's still around when I get back, sign me up!


----------



## Geise

Why don't you charge people like $5 per CD (plus shipping) to cut their CDs for them? This way people can do comparisons on their own music and not have to buy an expensive gadget or use your CDs...


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Geise* 
_Why don't you charge people like $5 per CD (plus shipping) to cut their CDs for them? This way people can do comparisons on their own music and not have to buy an expensive gadget or use your CDs..._

 

This is a good suggestion, but I'm not in this hobby to make money, and I don't really want to be running to the post office every day. Maybe Brandon would be interested in doing this. For a couple of CD's here and there, no problem.

 There will be a fairly wide variety of music in the package so everyone will at least have a chance to hear (or not hear) the effects that trimming the discs has, and then they can report back their findings. You don't have to listen to more than 30 second intervals to pick up which one has been trimmed.


----------



## aeberbach

Without hearing discs that have been cut all I can say is that if you cut carefully you probably won't hurt them.

 But the price? If I took the Farnell or McMaster-Carr or Digikey or any of a numer of other catalogs and ordered everything I needed, including tools, to make one of these units - it would still be cheaper than $650. I could probably make one with an old CD drive or LP player and a clamp to hold a blade for nothing. There is no rocket science in setting a 36 degree cutting blade! P.T. Barnum chuckles in his grave...


----------



## radrd

Proving that audiophiles remain in the "some of the people some of the time" category.


----------



## Tuberoller

Count me in.

 I'm gonna offer a bit of a reserved recommendation for the Audio Desk cutter. Todd Green and I talked about my experiences with the desk and I discussed this at length with one of the engineers(Kevin?) at Wadia Digital when I was there during the meet. My experiences have been much more inconsistent and I was never able to quantify real improvements. Granted, I never performed auditions under controlled conditions with duplicate discs so this sounds really interesting.

 Most of my experiences came after being made the offer to try it on some of my discs from a friend at Music Direct. He offered to treat three discs and to replace those discs if I was'nt impressed. I never took him up on his offer but I do have all three discs still. I'm very interested to revist the Audio Desk treatment and do a more in-depth audition. So I'm in.


----------



## tk_suki

Not sure of the Patent rules, but seems would be more economical, rather than individuals forced to buy and have sit idle most of the time, simply have a CD processing service, cut/color for users. There are others already in existence for clean, repair, & copy.

 Hint, so I can try it with a very modest investment. Though skeptical this could make the G08 sound much better than it already is.

 Suggest folks invest their money in a G08 first, which will likely yield much better sound. But for those who can not afford or already have one, looking for a cheap way to trial this sucker.

 I have seen in the stores, TEAC even lists on their Japan home page, so maybe will ask if I can test a couple of discs.

 Like the DIY idea too. But first going to hold out for some other skeptics to be converted. But got my attention. Same with the Barry D. hip joints(like roller balls) and the enjoyyourshelf rack concepts.

 p.s. Why didn`t the CD inventors take care of this from the get go? Ok might cost a fraction more, but if that good could pass along the few extra cents with a nice little markup.


----------



## Todd R

Which side is the bevel cut on? Lable side or data side?


----------



## mikeliao

Finally. We've got the uniforms. We've got the motto (I think). Now we have the weapon. 

 Head-Fi Special Attack Force (or somthing like it, I forget) equipment list is now complete. Training to commence shortly, beginning with throwing fresbees and eventually working up to our secret edged CD weapon.


 No seriously, I'd like to give it a try. Who do we PM for the current package holder and how does the package holder decide which person to send it onto?


----------



## BradJudy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Brandon_Ottawa* 
_Does green or black work? 
 A hot tip in audio expert circles is the colouring of the CD's edge with a felt pen, to absorb the light scatter. The effect unfortunately doesn't deliver on its promise. Green as a complimentary colour to the red laser should bring better results, this is however often not the case as many lasers work with the infra-red spectrum. 

 Simple and effective: the 36° bevel

 Turning round and absorption
 In exhaustive tests biochemist Dr. Erich Schrott and engineer Wolfgang Schneider have looked for ways to eliminate the disruptive reflections. They found an amazingly simple, yet highly effective, tuning method. The CD's outer edge is bevelled and works as a trap for the light scatter. Black colouring absorbs additional misrouted laser light. An edge angle of 36° brings audibly the best results."_

 

Just a couple of science notes here. ALL CD player lasers are infra-red, not red, so I'm not sure why they reference red lasers. Since the lasers are infra-red (non-visible), the visible color of a marker doesn't directly relate to whether or not it absorbs infra-red light. There are substances that absorb all visible light, but allow infra-red light to pass unabsorbed. 

 Cutting an angle on the side of a CD could keep laser light from passing out the edge because of total internal reflection, but I don't know how this would improve playback. Since the angle would be dependant on the index of refraction of substance (generally ~1.55-1.6 for polycarbonate for CDs), it would vary if the index of refraction of the substance varied. Since the index of refraction plays into reading CDs properly, it shouldn't vary much. 

 For polycarbonate, the critical angle for total internal reflection is ~38-40 degrees. Anything at that angle or greater would internally reflect and not go past the edge of the disc. I can draw a diagram later, but because of the way the angles work, the 36 degree cut is actually a 54 degree angle for the purposes of this discussion, well into the range for total internal reflection. In fact, there is a wide range of angles at which this should work.

 This is a neat webpage on total internal reflection: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...pt/totint.html

 Again, I don't know how this would improve playback, but the science is much more sound than markers for blocking stray light.


----------



## Welly Wu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BradJudy* 
_Just a couple of science notes here. ALL CD player lasers are infra-red, not red, so I'm not sure why they reference red lasers. Since the lasers are infra-red (non-visible), the visible color of a marker doesn't directly relate to whether or not it absorbs infra-red light. There are substances that absorb all visible light, but allow infra-red light to pass unabsorbed. 

 Cutting an angle on the side of a CD could keep laser light from passing out the edge because of total internal reflection, but I don't know how this would improve playback. Since the angle would be dependant on the index of refraction of substance (generally ~1.55-1.6 for polycarbonate for CDs), it would vary if the index of refraction of the substance varied. Since the index of refraction plays into reading CDs properly, it shouldn't vary much. 

 For polycarbonate, the critical angle for total internal reflection is ~38-40 degrees. Anything at that angle or greater would internally reflect and not go past the edge of the disc. I can draw a diagram later, but because of the way the angles work, the 36 degree cut is actually a 54 degree angle for the purposes of this discussion, well into the range for total internal reflection. In fact, there is a wide range of angles at which this should work.

 This is a neat webpage on total internal reflection: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...pt/totint.html

 Again, I don't know how this would improve playback, but the science is much more sound than markers for blocking stray light._

 

Like Radrd said before, audiophiles fall into the "sometimes some of the time" category. I should know. I did. However, this is really cutting it too close for me (pun intended).


----------



## Asmo

Would this improve the quality of the audio that is ripped from the CD via a computer? Perhaps rip a cut CD and regular CD, make a small 1-2 minute long flac or ape of this, and pass it around (if there is a difference, wouldn't it apply to this as well?)


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Asmo* 
_Would this improve the quality of the audio that is ripped from the CD via a computer?_

 

Computers don't count since it's reading the audio not as audio but data so transport based jitter is out of the equation.


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mikeliao* 
_No seriously, I'd like to give it a try. Who do we PM for the current package holder and how does the package holder decide which person to send it onto?_

 

Good question! Send your PM to me, and I will coordinate the list. Be sure to include your name, address, and phone number. I'll then compile the list so that folks will know who they will be receiving the package from and who to send it to next.

 In general, it will be first come, first serve, but subject to a little common sense (i.e., if two people live within a few miles of each other in California, there is no sense in sending the packege to New York and then right back).

 As this thread develops, it will be interesting to see how the proportion of respones changes (i.e., those who would prefer to poke fun while remaining ignorant on the subject relative to those willing to try it and then report back based on experience rather than assumptions).


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BradJudy* 
_Just a couple of science notes here. ALL CD player lasers are infra-red, not red, so I'm not sure why they reference red lasers. Since the lasers are infra-red (non-visible), the visible color of a marker doesn't directly relate to whether or not it absorbs infra-red light. There are substances that absorb all visible light, but allow infra-red light to pass unabsorbed. 

 Cutting an angle on the side of a CD could keep laser light from passing out the edge because of total internal reflection, but I don't know how this would improve playback. Since the angle would be dependant on the index of refraction of substance (generally ~1.55-1.6 for polycarbonate for CDs), it would vary if the index of refraction of the substance varied. Since the index of refraction plays into reading CDs properly, it shouldn't vary much. 

 For polycarbonate, the critical angle for total internal reflection is ~38-40 degrees. Anything at that angle or greater would internally reflect and not go past the edge of the disc. I can draw a diagram later, but because of the way the angles work, the 36 degree cut is actually a 54 degree angle for the purposes of this discussion, well into the range for total internal reflection. In fact, there is a wide range of angles at which this should work.

 This is a neat webpage on total internal reflection: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...pt/totint.html

 Again, I don't know how this would improve playback, but the science is much more sound than markers for blocking stray light._

 

I don't use the markers myself very often and have never done any testing to see if a disc that has the black marker treatment sounds any better than one that does not. I'm skeptical about this as well, and perhaps this is why I don't normally bother with the black marker treatment (or green, or whatever). In fact, my Audio Desk was a demo unit so there was no black marker included, and I was not even aware that they recommmneded this.

 My experience is based on the CD cutting alone, and/or in combination with Walker's Audio Vivid, so I make no claims whatsoever about the effects (if any) of black markers. What I have observed is that discs spin much more naturally when they have been trimmed. The edges of manufactured discs are not perfectly smooth (run your finger around the outer edge of one if you don't believe me), so all the Audio Desk does is to remove little bits of the outer edge. On my Shanling T200, I can stand above the player and watch the discs spinning, and there in no wabble at all with a trimmed disc. For some reason (and trust me, the science is beyond me) the trimmed discs sound better. The difference is not overly dramatic, but it is quite easy to detect on most trimmed discs. At least I can pick out which one has been trimmed and which has not been trimmed 9 times out of 10.


----------



## Skarecrow

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* 
_Computers don't count since it's reading the audio not as audio but data so transport based jitter is out of the equation._

 

Now correct me if I'm wrong now, but there is zero "audio" on a CD. It's a polycarbonate covered metal disc with pits/valleys that are read by a laser as 1s and 0s that digitally represent audio. All CD-based "audio" starts off digital and then is fed to a DAC (whether internal to the CDP or external via spdif coax/optical ports) to be changed into analog electrical representiations of audio, which are then fed to a speaker of some variety... changing it to something we can finally hear.

 Since all CD-based audio starts off digital, if this tweak does somehow work (call me skeptical), it should apply to all CDs. Whether the information is passed directly from the laser mechanism to the DAC or whether it is intermediatly stored on disc shouldn't matter, so long as the transfer is bit perfect.

 And that all being said, you can't read binary ones and zeros as anything but ones and zeros. there is no "strong ones" or "weak zeros" or whatever, it's either true or false. 1 or 0. what that means is that if this cutting tool IS making a difference, then it is changing the way the laser would normally read the pits and valleys on a disc. Whether it's changing them for better or for worse is up to you. Is it reading them more accurately than normal? That question is beyond my knowledge.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Skarecrow* 
_Now correct me if I'm wrong now, but there is zero "audio" on a CD.

 Since all CD-based audio starts off digital, if this tweak does somehow work (call me skeptical), it should apply to all CDs. 

 Whether the information is passed directly from the laser mechanism to the DAC or whether it is intermediatly stored on disc shouldn't matter, so long as the transfer is bit perfect.

 And that all being said, you can't read binary ones and zeros as anything but ones and zeros. there is no "strong ones" or "weak zeros" or whatever_

 

Well the disc format/structure and playback for audio CDs is different than a data CD. Audio CDs have less error correction, are read at 1X, and are affected by jitter which make them more suseptable to quality loss during playback.

 If this tweak does make reading discs better then yes it would affect all CDs including data ones. Data CDs wouldn't benefit in the same way though.


----------



## Brandon_Ottawa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Todd R* 
_Which side is the bevel cut on? Lable side or data side?_

 

The bevel is cut on the data side.


----------



## Edwood

Uh, the label side IS the data side technically, BTW.

 But you're talking about that it cuts into the reflective side opposite of the label side, right?

 That would be the safest area to cut. 

 I use a computer as a source too, so I don't think I'd be able to hear the difference after ripping the tracks either.

 Brandon: Can you show a close up pic of the beveled cut, along with the shavings, to give us an idea of how much/little it actually shaves off?

 -Ed


----------



## Brandon_Ottawa

Edwood...here are some quick pics that I took of the shavings and the disc's bevel after cutting and marking. The shavings look like dental floss.

 My best results are obtained by cutting at about 7500-8000 rpm on the audio desk. I like to make a final "clean-up" cut at the machine's max speed (9000 rpm). Marking the beveled edge is a piece of cake...you just hold the marker in a stationary position against the beveled edge while the disc spins at 50 or so RPM. The end result is very clean.

 A word of caution: The Audio Desk improves the sound of SACD's, BUT...I wouldn't recommend using the lathe on these discs. SACD's seem to have a very thin laminate that tends to develop stress cracks from the cutting process/handling during application of optical enhancers and cleaners. Some of my cut SACD's have stress cracks around the outer edge (approx 0.1 - 0.5 mm in length). I haven't had any problems playing any of these discs. I still continue to bevel my SACD's. The sonic improvement that I hear is more important than a cosmetically perfect disc.

 I have never had any problem with any CD's that I have cut. They are 100% problem free.







 The CD is a little dusty and statically charged after throwing the shaving on it. The marking was done while the disc was clean. A good reason to have a Bedini!


----------



## ampgalore

This looks mighty dangerous. I think I'll pass.


----------



## Todd R

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ampgalore* 
_This looks mighty dangerous. I think I'll pass._

 

Aww ya big chicken 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Brandon, 
 How much you want to circumcise some of my disks? I'd like to hear for my self what this does. 
 TR


----------



## gerG

Heehee, I vote this the goofiest tweak this year! Too often I see arguments that leverage an aspect of physics in the wrong direction and build a product on that flawed base. Am I missing something?

 My issues:

 1) The assertion that scattered light is a problem. Why? Don't manufacturers know how to align the polarizer on the receiving optics with the transmitter? If not, I just found a killer tweak.

 2) Adding an angle to the edge to "improve" the rejection of stray light. All of the disks that I have incorporate a vertical polished edge. That basically lets the incident light OUT. How the hell does catching it and bouncing it around inside some more help? I have pondered the rays that are not normal to the edge, and it still seems like this process holds more light in than it releases.

 3) Coloring the edge to improve the reflection/absorbtion/adsorption/mysticism/etc. The ink is on the wrong side of the surface to do much good.

 4) What about the inside edge? That thing is usually a mess, and could probably use some help. ok, it is outside the scope of the product, but I was just curious.

 It really would be an improvement if this trick actually balanced the CD. More and more lately I find that my new CDs shake the bejesus out of my transport. I can imagine the poor tracking mechanism trying to keep up.

 Please clue me in if I am missing the purpose of this device.


 gerG


----------



## Mr.PD

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gerG* 
_.................................................. .......................
 It really would be an improvement if this trick actually balanced the CD. More and more lately I find that my new CDs shake the bejesus out of my transport. I can imagine the poor tracking mechanism trying to keep up.

 Please clue me in if I am missing the purpose of this device.


 gerG_

 

Maybe you hit on the purpose, if it indexes on the center hole and trims the outer edge, maybe it is balancing the CD.


----------



## gerG

Mr.PD, that part I have no trouble believing. We need a high speed CD balancer!


 gerG


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mr.PD* 
_Maybe you hit on the purpose, if it indexes on the center hole and trims the outer edge, maybe it is balancing the CD._

 

Yes, in my experience, this is precisely what it does. As I've said previously on this thread:

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* 
_ What I have observed is that discs spin much more naturally when they have been trimmed. The edges of manufactured discs are not perfectly smooth... so all the Audio Desk does is to remove little bits of the outer edge. On my Shanling T200, I can stand above the player and watch the discs spinning, and there in no wabble at all with a trimmed disc..._


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ampgalore* 
_Not another one. Wasn't there a thread about placing a rainbow sticker on CDs that made "dramatic" improvements in CD playback, heard things never heard before...

 For $500 I would rather spend it on a new CD player or buy more CDs._

 

He...

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *grinch* 
_hahah sure seems like an interesting way to spend money. personally, for $550 i'd rather have more music. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 He he...

 nirvana's unplugged album sounds really impressive to me too, my copy hasn't been "trimmed" around the edges though. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

He he he...

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *radrd* 
_Proving that audiophiles remain in the "some of the people some of the time" category. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

He he he he...

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Welly Wu* 
_Like Radrd said before, audiophiles fall into the "sometimes some of the time" category. I should know. I did. However, this is really cutting it too close for me (pun intended)._

 

He he he he he...


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gerG* 
_Heehee, I vote this the goofiest tweak this year! Too often I see arguments that leverage an aspect of physics in the wrong direction and build a product on that flawed base. *Am I missing something?*gerG_

 

Yes. You haven't tried it.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* 
_As this thread develops, it will be interesting to see how the proportion of respones changes (i.e., those who would prefer to poke fun while remaining ignorant on the subject relative to those willing to try it and then report back based on experience rather than assumptions)._


----------



## Oliver :)

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gerG* 
_Mr.PD, that part I have no trouble believing. We need a high speed CD balancer!
 gerG_

 

Totally with you! I threw my Concord Jazz Sampler No.2 into my Denon 2900 last night, and it made the drive sound like... yeah, like a lawnmower. I could even feel the vibration standing next to it. No kidding! 

 The problem is two-sided.
 1. The discs are not properly balanced. For whatever reason, it is beyond me.
 2. The drives spin the discs too fast. 

 I have no idea whether I should start cutting my discs into better shapes, but I know for sure that I will call up Denon tomorrow and demo the sound of the drive to someone just asking to guess what it might be (so without telling), and if they cannot make it out but say something in the line of "sounds bad/annoying" I will tell the person that it's their *#!"&%$ €1100 player and that I want it replaced.


----------



## Mr.PD

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* 
_Yes, in my experience, this is precisely what it does. As I've said previously on this thread:_

 

So, if the outer edges of a disc are uneven, and there is the possibility that the hole is not perfectly centered then this machine will true all that up. Considering that the material the disc is made from is more than likely uniform in thickness, and if the printing on the label side does not effect balance, then the the Audio Desk balances the CD. I would think that balancing would have the greatest effect on sound quality. I am still unsure about the light escape thing though. I can see where this machine could make a difference, even though I feel it has more to do with balance than laser.

 Why does the machine spin so fast for the cutting action? Do you think it could cut just as well at slower speeds?


----------



## Geise

High speeds are best for the cleanest, most accurate cutting. This is very evident in power tools, but is also seen in dental and medical instruments aswell


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mr.PD* 
_So, if the outer edges of a disc are uneven, and there is the possibility that the hole is not perfectly centered then this machine will true all that up. Considering that the material the disc is made from is more than likely uniform in thickness, and if the printing on the label side does not effect balance, then the the Audio Desk balances the CD. *I would think that balancing would have the greatest effect on sound quality. I am still unsure about the light escape thing though.* I can see where this machine could make a difference, even though I feel it has more to do with balance than laser.

 Why does the machine spin so fast for the cutting action? Do you think it could cut just as well at slower speeds?_

 

Even as a "believer" in what this machine does for the sound of CD's based on my actual experience with it, I'm also skeptical about the about the light escaping explanation. I'm with you in that it seems to have more to do with balancing, or at least this much is physically observable. Until this thread appeared, I didn't even know about the light escape thing because I've never bothered to read about the Audio Desk. I just use it and it works, and I'm happy with that.

 I think Geise covered the speed issue. I'm not sure what the minimum speed would be but you could probably get by with half speed (4500 rpm) and still get a clean cut. The disc is placed on a thick pad and clamped down tightly with a locking bolt that it also padded, so it shouldn't hurt to use a lower speed, so long as it's not so slow and the blade 'grabs' the disc and jams the motor (e.g., at less than 1000 rpm). 

 It works much like a grinder except that instead of holding the object in your hands and touching it against the grinding wheel as the wheel spins, the disk is spinning and you move the arm that the blade is attached to such that the blade makes contact with the disc. The angle that the blade is positioned at is 'fixed' so it becomes a no brainer to use. As Brandon mentioned, it is best to make the initial cut very gently and at slightly less than full speed to avoid gouging the disc, then you do the rest of the cut at full speed. As with cooking popcorn, you stop when not much else is happening. The actual cutting takes just 2-3 seconds. Clamping, unclamping and cleaning away the trimmings is what takes time. If you're doing a production run, you can connect a vaccuum cleaner up to it to suck out the trimmings.


----------



## sclemmons

It really works. I have had one of these Audio Desk lathes for a couple of years. I am on my second blade. 

 It works well at my house. You may not be able to hear the difference on your system; it depends on the resolution you have already. If you are importing CD's to your iPod, it probably doesn't matter. My wife can hear the difference, and likes it well enough that we cut all the CD's we listen to regularly. She can usually hear the difference with tweaks if there is any to be heard, but she doesn't usually care about it. She is as skeptical about audio snake oil as anybody on this forum. If she likes it, that is a fairly strong statement in favor, IMHO.

 I got mine from a dealer who cut a couple of duplicate CD's for me to try. We compared and liked the cut CD's better. Find a dealer who will do it for you and buy it from him if you like the result.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Brandon_Ottawa* 
_Edwood...here are some quick pics that I took of the shavings and the disc's bevel after cutting and marking. The shavings look like dental floss.

 My best results are obtained by cutting at about 7500-8000 rpm on the audio desk. I like to make a final "clean-up" cut at the machine's max speed (9000 rpm). Marking the beveled edge is a piece of cake...you just hold the marker in a stationary position against the beveled edge while the disc spins at 50 or so RPM. The end result is very clean.

 A word of caution: The Audio Desk improves the sound of SACD's, BUT...I wouldn't recommend using the lathe on these discs. SACD's seem to have a very thin laminate that tends to develop stress cracks from the cutting process/handling during application of optical enhancers and cleaners. Some of my cut SACD's have stress cracks around the outer edge (approx 0.1 - 0.5 mm in length). I haven't had any problems playing any of these discs. I still continue to bevel my SACD's. The sonic improvement that I hear is more important than a cosmetically perfect disc.

 I have never had any problem with any CD's that I have cut. They are 100% problem free.

http://members.rogers.com/brandonottawa/floss.jpg

 The CD is a little dusty and statically charged after throwing the shaving on it. The marking was done while the disc was clean. A good reason to have a Bedini!
http://members.rogers.com/brandonottawa/markeddisc.jpg_

 

Woah. That's a lot of material it cuts away.

 Haha, now the cd's have a sharp edge, so you can use them as a deadly weapon. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I think I would rather spend the money on a Wet Process CD resurfacing/repair machine, as I have more problems with older scratched discs.

 Thanks for the pics, Brandon. Looks very precise.

 -Ed


----------



## DarkAngel

*Cable Co* is the main supplier in USA I think, my salesman there said Music Direct gets thier units from him. If you seem interested Cable Co. will let you send CD in to have it trimmed and return to you for comparison to original (make sure you have two copies)

 They do not lend these out from tweak library (for obvious reasons, he he) and have special package deal if you buy CD lathe with Furutech de-mag unit.

 I have known about this tweak for many years, but have not used it because it violates my "golden rule" of tweaking:

*Never apply a tweak which cannot be later removed*

 I am even a little hesitant to apply the various CD polishes (Auric, Walker etc) since who know what may happen 10 years from now to CD? I still remember long ago some people ruined thier CDs using Armour-all as a CD polish and later CDs surface became clouded and opaque.


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sclemmons* 
_It really works. I have had one of these Audio Desk lathes for a couple of years. I am on my second blade._

 

Ok, so by my count, we now have 3 people who have tried it (4 counting sclemmons's wife) who have tried the Audio Desk Systeme and say - with no equivocation - that it works. We also have a bunch of people who have never tried it and have not yet taken up my offer to try the discs that I've trimmed, but choose to poke fun instead. So who is laughing with PT Barnum now?


----------



## Geise

About the balance thing, I think the designers were aiming to improve laser purity with this machine, but may not have given a thought to how it may improve balance aswell 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 At least that's what I'd like to believe...that'd be 2 tweaks in one package 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Either way, I'd say this is a tweak for those who already have a ultra top notch system and no other upgrade or tweak is improving anything (probably why it's priced so high; it's for people who can afford Orpheus's and the like 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Geise* 
_Either way, I'd say this is a tweak for those who already have a ultra top notch system and no other upgrade or tweak is improving anything (probably why it's priced so high; it's for people who can afford *Orpheus's and the like *





)_

 

Uhhhhhh, you got me there! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Because of the price, yes, you're right. But in terms of what it does for the sound, I would not describe it as a tweek of last resort. To my ears, it works better than any other CD-related tweek that I've tried.

 The price was something that I didn't give much consideration to because at the time I bought my demo unit for $400, I had another buyer lined up for it already in case I didn't like it. I could have flipped it and not lost a dime, and this is what I fully _expected_ to happen. Then once I tried it, I decided to keep it since the Audio Desk does at least as much as cable upgrades that cost a lot more.


----------



## gerG

wmcmanus, I am sorry to poke fun, but the manufacturers explanation of why it works just struck me as absurd. I get very skeptical when manufacturers don't seem to understand their own products. Maybe it is just poor add copy, or I am missing some of the physics.

 In any event, you have gotten me curious about CD balance, and related nonuniformities. I am going to look into cleaning up the edge of some of my discs that wobble like crazy. Unfortunately that is only the beginning. They wobble due to warpage as much as being trimmed improperly. I have even found one disc with the spiral tracks off center. That has to be the worst. No wonder the read mechanism just gave out on my Sony 333.

 Does the bevel get cut all the way to the reflective layer? I am wondering what would happen if you got to that interface. As far as balance goes, the more material off the better. I also have several awful CDs that could stand to lose all of the music tracks as well.


 gerG


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gerG* 
_wmcmanus, I am sorry to poke fun, but the manufacturers explanation of why it works just struck me as absurd. I get very skeptical when manufacturers don't seem to understand their own products. Maybe it is just poor add copy, or I am missing some of the physics.
 gerG_

 

No problem. In fact, I'm with you on this. As I mentioned, I had never looked at their literature before and their explanation does seem a bit out there. I was quite surprised to see that they had any purpose other than balancing in mind.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gerG* 
_Does the bevel get cut all the way to the reflective layer? I am wondering what would happen if you got to that interface. As far as balance goes, the more material off the better. gerG_

 

The cut goes right up to, but not into the reflective layer. On some discs the cut does not come very close to the refelctive layer. It all depends on how wide the outer layer of clear plastic is on the disc.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gerG* 
_I also have several awful CDs that could stand to lose all of the music tracks as well.gerG_

 

As do I. Too funny!


----------



## Tim D

If you really care about the balancing aspects, the poor man's solution is a high quality burn with high quality media and burner.

 Not to mention you can get very high quality rips, and have your ripping results authenticated by online server if it is a common disc.

 This way you don't modify the original, you can prove your burn is not only exact to that particular disc, but exact to that particular distribution that matches with the rest of the world.

 And you can apply all the cutting and marking and cleaning solutions you want on your copies all day long.


----------



## gerG

A fun thought for some day when you are bored. Beveling one side half way, flipping, and matching the other side would give a cool compound edge. Touching the point with a straight bit would then yield a very snazy 3 facet edge. Havent a clue on the sonic impact, but it would look trick. Practice on either a blank PC disk or one of those awful ones.


 gerG


----------



## gerG

Tim D, really? How do I go about this? How are errors addressed?

 One of the worst offenders is an SACD that I just bought. I believe that quality standards are slipping, while drive speeds keep going up.

 gerG


----------



## Tim D

http://www.accuraterip.com/

 Download the plugin and use with EAC. For all I know it may be included with EAC by default, I forgot the exact installation procedure but I'm sure its documented there. It basically uses checksums and sends it to an online database which basically does all the datawarehousing/mining type stuff to figure out if you have a copy that conforms with all the copies other people are sending or not. Obviously its utility raises as more people use it. Also it does all the offset correction for you as well if you use key discs.

 It does error checking to tell you if your copy conforms via CRC checksum or not, but does not do error correction as I am sure that ability would require license verification to be met in order to be legal. But that would be one great next step, to be able to verify your license and actually download patch/recovery files to apply and burn or use to your liking.


----------



## edstrelow

I was thinking about giving a review of this lathe but I searched and found it had been done quite awhile ago. Whatever happened about sending samples around. No-one seemed to write in about this.

 At any rate, I have had one of these for about 6 months now and feel it is a very good tweak, rather on the pricey side, but virtually all of my discs sound significantly better trimmed. I note in particular a broader and more solid soundstage which suggests that something about the timing and phase relationships between the left and right channels is being helped. 

 I am puzzled about the bevelling aspect but I suspect the main advantage is to "true up" the dics so that there is less wobble. If you don't think this happens, try playing a disc on a portable cd/dvd player. I was finding a lot of shake on many discs. 

 My treatment of discs is rather like the originator of this thread but I also sand both outer and inner edges before I use the black marker. I have previously found this simple expedient alone cleans up sound. To anticipate the scoffers who troll this forum, if you don't believe me, try this one yourself. Otherwise back off!.

 As regards the lathe however, it is expensive, I justify it on the grounds that it is a significant sonic improvement such that even if you go for megabuck equipment you will still be missing the advantages that this tweak does. 

 Also it does good things for the sound and picture of DVD's. However I think you need be much more careful, not to cut too much because the dvd is a "sandwich" of two plastic sheets with the data foil in between, whereas a cd is solid plastic with the data foil on the top. I have spilt the odd recordable dvd by cutting too far in although this has not happened with any prerecorded dvd.


----------



## OverlordXenu

This is so ridiculous...


----------



## edstrelow

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is so ridiculous..._

 

What - you think that a vibrating cd will play better than a stable one? Do some thinking instead of just popping off.


----------



## Assorted

Graphical analysis, like a frequency spectrum for comparison might be more convincing.


----------



## Drag0n

I hope this beveled cd thing isnt like those foil stickers you put inside your cellphone to amplify your signal from your antenna,supposedly providing a tuned counterpoise or ground-plane effect for your antenna to enhance your signal...lol. 
 I guess we will see.


----------



## Akathisia

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is so ridiculous..._

 

Good one. Welcome to the ignore list.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Akathisia* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Good one. Welcome to the ignore list._

 

Thanks for the useless spam and inspiring message! I am so sorry, I will stop calling snake oil products snake oil when I see them!

 The bits either get read or they don't. If they don't get read, you get an error. It is black and white. This is just another "some of the people some of the time" product.


----------



## fraseyboy

What... I was just cataloging all our CD's and got to a Mike Oldfield one... Discovery. I was surprised to see that the edges were kinda sloped down to be thinner than the rest of the CD. Mike Oldfields Crises also had this.

 Is that kinda what this weird machine thing does or is it something else? If not, why are the edges sharpened like this?


----------



## Akathisia

Maybe Oldfield knows about the tweak...


----------



## fkclo

Instead of spending over US$500 to find out, one can simply order a lathed version and the original version of a CD and compare it yourself, from here :

Svalander Audio AB, Shoppen, Test and demo CDs

 US$30 should help most people solve the puzzle.

 I have one, bought new back in early 2007. Still believe this is the best CD treatment. However, it is also this machine that made me realise my old CD player is not resolving enough the tell the difference clearly - until I heard the same lathed CD at my friend's place - and the difference is definitely audible, no need for golden ears. 

 Whether the difference is likable or not is a subjective matter. Most of my friends like what they heard from the lathed CD, but a few took the opposite view. I guess this needs some getting used to.

 FWIW.
 F. Lo


----------



## Akathisia

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fkclo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Instead of spending over US$500 to find out, one can simply order a lathed version and the original version of a CD and compare it yourself, from here_

 

I think I might order 2 copies of Vivaldi's Four Seasons (one lathed, and one plain). I wonder if I ripped them correctly to FLAC files and posted up samples, if the difference would be audible.


----------



## vcoheda

comment by Alex Peychev, owner of APL Hi-Fi, about the Audio Desk Systeme CD Improver.

  Quote:


 "Well, the only device that treats the actual media to come close to VRDS-NEO is the Audio Desk Systeme from Germany. It is balancing the disc in reference to its center which results in much improved balance. The problem with the above mentioned product is that it is not as good as the VRDS-NEO in reducing vibrations, and also, it does not provide the Magnesium dick stabilizer/clamper.


----------



## Pars

Probably similar in concept to the Simply Physics IsoDrive, which was a bearing and a platter disk that sits on top of the CD in the tray (made mainly for front-loading Philips mechanism players back in the '90s). I got one of these for Christmas (the last one that the manufacturer had) and it does work... just like Jocko said it would


----------



## n_maher

Quote:


 and also, it does not provide the Magnesium dick stabilizer/clamper. 
 

I'm not sure I want any clamping going on that region...


----------



## Pars

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *n_maher* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not sure I want any clamping going on that region..._

 

Yeah, I'd noticed that typo myself, but wasn't touching that one...


----------



## Anders

I also bought the AudioDesk machine and agree that it is the best CD treatment I have tested. I tested before and that was a little simpler for me as I live in the same country as the shop referenced above by fkclo.

 I you want to test you can send a few CDs to me with a return envelope and dollar or Euro notes to cover postage, PM in case you are interested. You should have two identical CDs and keep one at home.


----------



## vcoheda

if Alex at APL, who is also a former engineer at Sony, says this product works then i tend to think it does. the problem with this tweak as well as most others is that if the system is not resolving enough the audible differences are not realized. tweaks just like cables are often said to be the final step because they will make little to no difference on low grade equipment.


----------



## Akathisia

I agree that some tweaks may only provide a sound difference on higher end of high fidelity systems, but things like interconnects and high end recables have had a large enough effect on mid-fi sound to warrent the price in my opinion and by my experiences.


----------



## fraseyboy

Anyone else here got a Mike Oldfield CD to check if it has beveled edges like mine does?


----------



## crazyface

I have a very rare CD that I could never get another copy of by any means, though I'd like to hear what it would sound like with this tweak. If I used my computer to burn a backup copy of it, and then used this tweak on that backup, would it work the same as if I'd done it to the original disc?


----------



## Anders

It is said to work on CDRs but I have not tried myself yet. However, I doubt that favorite CD are the best to test as it is then easy to build up expectations of improvement in a wanted direction. Anyway, a good copy of a CD can sound better than the original, also without tweaking.


----------



## crazyface

How may I make a good copy of a CD that sounds better than the original?


----------



## Akathisia

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *crazyface* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How may I make a good copy of a CD that sounds better than the original? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Someone would have to post a how-to or elaborate but it has something to do with using the really slow and thoruogh rip in EAC I believe.


----------



## OverlordXenu

jiGGafellz' Step-by-Step Guide to Secure CD Ripping w/Exact Audio Copy

 Also, that makes bit-perfect copies. You can't do any better than that. (FYI: Most transports/cd players are bit-perfect, too.) Sending your rare CD off to get all cut-up would just be a waste of time and it could possibly get ruined/lost in the mail/damaged in the mail/etc. I just don't see that as worth it.


----------



## Wmcmanus

As I've said many times before, this tweak works extremely well (relative to other CD tweaks). As someone else has just said here, you don't need to have golden ears to hear the difference and it works pretty much every time.

 This is why (back at the beginning of this thread several years ago), I offered to send around a sample of identical CDs (on trimmed and one not trimmed). There were about a dozen titles (or two dozen CDs) in that package along with a nice CD carrying case to hold them all, and a bunch of other stuff to treat the CDs (markers, Walker's Audio Vivid, Auric Illuminator, etc).

 Long story short, I never got the package back. Somewhere along the way, and I'm not sure exactly where and it's only a couple hundred bucks worth of stuff so I don't really care, someone decided to just keep it and not forward it on to others who wanted to do their own listening comparisons. Same thing happened when I sent my Jecklin Floats around on a loaner program. Someone simply decided to keep them.

 I guess I'm kind of slack with these things and don't set up any rigid ways to keep track of them. I just rely on people to be honest and courteous and then become disappointed when they aren't. I hope that doesn't make me passive aggressive, but I think I've learned my lesson at this point. If ever I decide to do something similar again, I'll put someone else in charge of keeping track of it. That's obviously not my strong suit.


----------



## gotchaforce

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As I've said many times before, this tweak works extremely well (relative to other CD tweaks). As someone else has just said here, you don't need to have golden ears to hear the difference and it works pretty much every time.

 This is why (back at the beginning of this thread several years ago), I offered to send around a sample of identical CDs (on trimmed and one not trimmed). There were about a dozen titles (or two dozen CDs) in that package along with a nice CD carrying case to hold them all, and a bunch of other stuff to treat the CDs (markers, Walker's Audio Vivid, Auric Illuminator, etc).

 Long story short, I never got the package back. Somewhere along the way, and I'm not sure exactly where and it's only a couple hundred bucks worth of stuff so I don't really care, someone decided to just keep it and not forward it on to others who wanted to do their own listening comparisons. Same thing happened when I sent my Jecklin Floats around on a loaner program. Someone simply decided to keep them.

 I guess I'm kind of slack with these things and don't set up any rigid ways to keep track of them. I just rely on people to be honest and courteous and then become disappointed when they aren't. I hope that doesn't make me passive aggressive, but I think I've learned my lesson at this point. If ever I decide to do something similar again, I'll put someone else in charge of keeping track of it. That's obviously not my strong suit._

 

Wow that is pretty f'ed up. No one even made up an excuse like "they got lost in the mail" or anything? thats just blatantly stealing


----------



## Capunk

This technology is simply bogus for people who bought and trimmed their CD, and later they just rip it into their PC/MAC right? 

 And the improvement will apply to people who own high end dedicated CD Player?


----------



## Akathisia

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Capunk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This technology is simply bogus for people who bought and trimmed their CD, and later they just rip it into their PC/MAC right? 

 And the improvement will apply to people who own high end dedicated CD Player?_

 

I don't understand your post


----------



## Capunk

[simple words]
 1st sentence : So if I buy the CD that has been trimmed with this *"AUDIO DESK SYSTEM W - HARDENED BLADE"*, it's practically waste of money, if I buy the CD only later to be ripped into lossless music format inside my PC? 

 2nd sentence: If I don't have a good CD transport or high-end CD player, does the trimmed CD will improve the SQ out of my normal CD player? (transported to my external DAC)


----------



## edstrelow

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for the useless spam and inspiring message! I am so sorry, I will stop calling snake oil products snake oil when I see them!

 The bits either get read or they don't. If they don't get read, you get an error. It is black and white. This is just another "some of the people some of the time" product._

 

Not exactly right there. 

 If the bits don't get read you may get an error, such as a skip or you get an interpolation, which is a statistically likely guess as to what should have been there. 

 As well, even though the bits may be read they have to be reconstituted as an analog signal. That's where issues like jitter come in to play. 

 Rather than "some of the people some of the time," I would suggest "pearls before swine."


----------



## stevenkelby

I can only assume that what you are trying to say is that Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Assorted* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Graphical analysis, like a frequency spectrum for comparison might be more convincing_

 

than just saying Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is so ridiculous..._

 

?


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *edstrelow* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If the bits don't get read you may get an error, such as a skip or you get an interpolation, which is a statistically likely guess as to what should have been there._

 

Two questions here: A) data integrity and B) jitter.

 A) Modern CD transports with error correction are of high enough quality to install software with a near zero chance of failure, so there is no way whatsoever in this universe that this product has any effect on the data being read off of those CDs.

 You can mathematically prove through a hash of CD data read from a disc on multiple different pieces of equipment that what is read is exactly the same each time. (Or, if you are seriously a non-believer, you could print out the 1s and 0s streamed from multiple sources and compare them one by one!) Otherwise, we would be crashing left and right from any software installed from CD.

 Perhaps some cheap and ancient CD players don't error correct or buffer, but anything people are likely to use around head-fi is probably not going to have this trouble.

 B) Most of us around head-fi use outboard DACs or digital sources that buffer or store the data from the disc and reclock it anyway. Assuming you believe jitter at the low levels of high-quality modern components audible, any clock jitter, therefore, would come from the DAC or soundcard's clock. The physical state of the CD would have nothing to do with it.

 I am highly doubtful of this device. I'd like to know why people think that beveling the edge of a CD would have any effect on the process of getting the bits to the DAC? Doubtful, but my mind is open if you have an explanation.

 --Chris


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You can mathematically prove through a hash of CD data read from a disc on multiple different pieces of equipment that what is read is exactly the same each time._

 

A hash does not prove that.
 You would need an encryption algorithm to do that (a 1-1 reversible function)

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_(Or, if you are seriously a non-believer, you could print out the 1s and 0s streamed from multiple sources and compare them one by one!) Otherwise, we would be crashing left and right from any software installed from CD._

 

I seriously doubt the bitstreams would be identical.
 I have never seen a test of that.
 There is a big difference between computers and audio devices in this respect:
 Computers don't do anything based on bitstreams, the bits are organized into bytes and groups of bytes. The construction of these gives predictable results : some combinations are valid, others are not. That makes it possible to do validation checks and make error corrections before execution.
 The bitstreams coming from an audio device are not organized in this way and thus not predictable. IMO validation and error correction are therefore not possible. 
 Some errors are recognized (hunks of data left out or very unlikely combinations) but the "corection" being made can only be an aproximation of what it could have been.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kees* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A hash does not prove that.
 You would need an encryption algorithm to do that (a 1-1 reversible function)_

 

I think you know what I meant & are nitpicking at what I said. An encryption hash would validate the data.

 Redbook does indeed read things in frames just like CD-ROM, followed by a subcode frame for validity checks. This allows for relatively accurate validation and error-correction on the fly so that unrecoverable error correction that would merit an interpolated result is seldom necessary. Nevertheless, modern CD transports are incredibly accurate at reading the data from disc, whether in a computer or audio application.

 Your response doesn't address the issue as to why beveling the edge of a CD would have any effect on either data integrity or jitter.

 --Chris


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think you know what I meant & are nitpicking at what I said. An encryption hash would validate the data.

 Redbook does indeed read things in 408 bit segments, followed by 180 parity and other bits. This allows for relatively accurate validation and error-correction on the fly. Nevertheless, modern CD transports are incredibly accurate at reading the data from disc, whether in a computer or audio application.

 Your response doesn't address the issue as to why beveling the edge of a CD would have any effect on either data integrity or jitter.

 --Chris_

 

I think because, as you admit, validation is only relatively accurate, and because the "error correction" is not (cannot be) bit perfect there is room for improvement. Meaning more accurate reading of the data with less optical distortion COULD be an improvement in sound quality.
 I think that is what my remark implies and I don't think that is nitpicking.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kees* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Meaning more accurate reading of the data with less optical distortion COULD be an improvement in sound quality._

 

That's quite a giant leap. Even if the number of incorrectly corrected errors (I think I've seen it estimated that CIRC error correction approaches zero errors for every hour of playback) was great enough to affect sound quality, why would beveling the outer edge of a CD prevent "optical distortion" and therefore decrease the number of errors already approaching zero?

 --Chris

 (I can hardly believe that in 2008 we're still having this debate.)


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's quite a giant leap. Even if the number of incorrectly corrected errors (I think I've seen it estimated that CIRC error correction approaches zero errors for every hour of playback) was great enough to affect sound quality, why would beveling the outer edge of a CD prevent "optical distortion" and therefore decrease the number of errors already approaching zero?

 --Chris

 (I can hardly believe that in 2008 we're still having this debate.)_

 

I am not shure what the giant leap is you are referring to, but I am glad that you agree with me that there actually _is _room for improvement.


----------



## Anders

I agree that it feels good to understand why something works. But how many really understand how an amplifier works and the difference in the electron level processes in a solid state and tube amplifier? Personally, I am more convinced by my experience of the AudioDesk trimmer than of the explanations I have read. It someone has technical arguments for a point and someone else has argument against, I often lack sufficient technical knowledge to say who is right. If anyone is, both may have misunderstood much of the issue!!! Therefore, listening is more important to me.

 A tweak can be developed on the basis of theoretical reasoning and engineering knowledge but it can also discovered by coincidence, and maybe also be based on wrong reasons but work for unknown reasons. I suspect that most tweaks belong to the two latter theories.

 Subjective audibility is not the strongest scientific evidence (in natural science) but subjective audibility is anyway the reason that we spend so much time and money on audio.

 Some explanations for the effect of edge-trimming have been proposed, but I don't know if they are true. Maybe not even deep theoretical knowledge is enough and experiments and measurement could be necessary for validation. Basically, I use the edge trimmer for listening purposes and not for engineering studies. 

 It seems that digital was believed to be a nearly perfect solution to the weaknesses of vinyl playback in the 1980s, at least in engineering circles as it could be mathematically proved that the digital recording to be perfectly reconstructed. Some even seem to think that 0's and 1's are floating around in the audio system, but it is only physical implementations of the mathematical digits and the implementations are not always perfect with problems of bit-errors and jitter. This was recognized early, for example in a 1990 Stereophile article by Robert Harley, see
Stereophile: CD: Jitter, Errors & Magic

 Some explanations have been proposed for edge-trimming:
 1) That the wobbling of the disk is reduced. Rotation of the disc leads to wobbling and easy to observe in a top loaded player and can sometimes even be heard with defective CDs. Wobbling leads to more movement of the CD pick-up and the servo with more read-errors and more stress on the error-correction circuits. Uncorrectable read-errors are uncommon but there are lots of correctable errors, as shown in tests of CDR media where these have been measured and often dependent both on media and the combination of media and reader. When there is an error, data must be read somewhere else on the disc and then interpolated by the correction circuits, leading to interruptions of the stream.

 2) Reflections of the laser beam are reduced optimally at the angle the edge get after trimming and by painting it black. 

 3) Better centering of the CD (this seems to be wrong)

 You could also look at these sources, 
Page Title (about AudioDesk)
Digital Domain - Jitter


----------



## stevenkelby

Seems like there is a lot of subjective evidence that it works, little that it doesn't. Some theoretical explanations for why it may work, none for why it _can not._


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Anders* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Uncorrectable read-errors are uncommon but there are lots of correctable errors, as shown in tests of CDR media where these have been measured and often dependent both on media and the combination of media and reader._

 

Don't let the word "error" when referring to CD technology deceive you. Correctable errors are C1 errors. Once corrected they are 100%, bit-for-bit the same as the data on the disc. These are the "common" errors. If CIRC didn't work this way, our music would indeed sound horrible and our computers indeed wouldn't work.

 The less common C2 errors are the ones that happen less than 1 time per hour of playback, and these are the ones that are corrected by interpolation on most players.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Anders* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_When there is an error, data must be read somewhere else on the disc and then interpolated by the correction circuits, leading to interruptions of the stream._

 

There is a buffer between the pickup and the output of the transport. This buffer, in most players, is kept half-full and when it drops below that amount, the disc spins faster to keep up. Because of this buffer, no such interruptions are possible, even if the data correction worked by reading from another part of the disc (it does not work this way).

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Anders* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_2) Reflections of the laser beam are reduced optimally at the angle the edge get after trimming and by painting it black._

 

Reflections, refractions, and other optical oddities will not, under normal circumstances, affect the laser reading the pits on the CD. If the refraction/reflection were great enough to interfere, it would cause a read error which would then be subjected to the same error correction explained above.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* 
_Seems like there is a lot of subjective evidence that it works, little that it doesn't. Some theoretical explanations for why it may work, none for why it can not._

 

Theoretically it can not work because there is no physical or electrical connection between the edge of a CD and the data stream fed to the DAC. Things in the digital domain don't work that way. This isn't an LP we're talking about. One shouldn't have to explain why spinning around thrice with one's thumb upon one's forehead will have no effect (perceivable or otherwise) on audio playback.

 If some people are hearing differences after doing this tweak, there must be some explainable reason why, and short of any other explanation it must be psychological.

 --Chris


----------



## vcoheda

we should just abolish this part of the forum.


----------



## brainsalad

Why does this thread of snake oil keep living? 

 This, along the Tice Clock, SHUN MOOK Resonators and MPINGO DISKS, speaker wire platforms, is among the most absurd thing I have heard.


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *brainsalad* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why does this thread of snake oil keep living? 

 This, along the Tice Clock, SHUN MOOK Resonators and MPINGO DISKS, speaker wire platforms, is among the most absurd thing I have *heard*._

 

I strongly suspect that you haven't heard any of them. Don't know about the others, but this tweak works. The differences are not only audible but easy to pick out, and not just by me but by anyone who I had sit in the listening chair. I did informal experiments with 4 or 5 people one day. In no time they could identify which disc was being played. They would either say "trimmed" or "not trimmed" and would be right at least 80% of the time. 

 It's pretty easy. You just play a 30 second segment of an involved song 3 or 4 times with the trimmed disc, then switch to the non trimmed and repeat the process 3 or 4 times. By then, they will be able to pick out some of the differences. So then you randomly put in one disc or the other. Of course they can't see which one you're putting in, but they can tell you which one it is. Normal, non audiophile types of people, from teenagers to people in their 60s.

 But go on with your snake oil stuff. No worries.


----------



## fkclo

I know very little about audio electronics but it keeps me wondering if "error correction" is so powerful then why people are spending some much money and time to invest on new transport mechanism ? 

 I would have assume if vibration is high, there is a way to "correct" the error. If the laser beam is not vertical, there is another way to "correct" the error. If the beam intensity fluctuates, there should be yet another way to correct the error. And if error correction will end up 100% bit -perfect transfer for data, then why CD players have such a wide price range - from US$100 to US$30,000 ? Why Esoteric is getting so much fame from its VRDS transport ? And why Philips still keep coming up with new CD servos 20 years after CD was born ?

 Also related, if CD data pick up is made so exact by error correction then why people are coming with different CD media / material - Alloy Gold, 24k Gold, LPCD (black high density plastic ?), and even pure glass.... Shouldn't any imperfections in the CD media be "corrected" so that there is no need for all these ? 

 Sometimes, I think that music listening is like food and wine tasting. It is all about senses. I am pretty sure there are scientific explanations behind, I doubt if we have all the answers today. As someone keep reminding me at work : "You don't know what you don't know", and I agree - after all, the progress of science is driven by what we do not know, not what we know already.

 Cheers,
 F. Lo


----------



## Akathisia

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *brainsalad* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why does this thread of snake oil keep living?_

 

This is the "Cables, Power, *Tweaks*, Speakers, Accessories" forum.

 on another note...

 There was a thread related to burn-in a while ago where a guy used microphones to record a headphone being played before and after burn-in and posted the samples here. It kind of showed the audible difference that was there, but there are control issues with volume, equipment temp, mic placement, etc.. 

 I think with the AudioDesk system, you could rip a CD with stringent settings, then have the CD tweaked, do it again, and possibly _hear_ the results. This is what I plan on doing, and as long as it is ok, I will post short snippets of the songs.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fkclo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sometimes, I think that music listening is like food and wine tasting._

 

Everyone loves to go down this road on this board, but connoisseurship isn't the issue. Food and wine are organic products that can vary dramatically in quality, depending on weather conditions and how long they are stored. Electronics are manufactured using many of the exact same stock parts, and generally either works or it doesn't. Any quality differences are going to be quantifiable and measurable.

 The appreciation of music may be an art similar to the appreciation of wine or food, not the ability to hear the differences in the tools used to reproduce it.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## fkclo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Everyone loves to go down this road on this board, but connoisseurship isn't the issue. Food and wine are organic products that can vary dramatically in quality, depending on weather conditions and how long they are stored. Electronics are manufactured using many of the exact same stock parts, and generally either works or it doesn't. Any quality differences are going to be quantifiable and measurable.

 The appreciation of music may be an art similar to the appreciation of wine or food, not the ability to hear the differences in the tools used to reproduce it.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I think there are more similarities here. Chemistry & Bio-chemistry are behind food and wine just like physics are behind audio as far as science is concerned. 

 There were must discussions in the past on how to "prove" what one hears using scientific parameters and theories, just like people are in the quest of proving the taste of wine as described by someone using chemical parameters and theories. 

 And yes, people are try to say fine chinaware delivers better tastes than cornings - something to do with heat dissipation and distribution in the food that they contain 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Nevermind.

 F. Lo


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fkclo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And if error correction will end up 100% bit -perfect transfer for data, then why CD players have such a wide price range - from US$100 to US$30,000 ? Why Esoteric is getting so much fame from its VRDS transport ? And why Philips still keep coming up with new CD servos 20 years after CD was born ?_

 

That's a great question all of us should be asking ourselves before running out to buy the latest and greatest. It's one thing to claim that one CD player sounds better than another when using the on-board DAC, but if you are going to pipe the unconverted PCM to an outboard DAC with its own clock or jitter-reduction scheme (such as the Grace m902's s-lock dual-PLL, a method firmly based in real science and used in studio-grade equipment), there is no reason to believe why any one quality transport should differ from another. If anyone doubts the quality of his transport, the PCM coming out from the transport can be recorded digitally and compared to the actual data on the disc, thus objectively proving beyond any doubt that the transport is doing what it is supposed to do. Computer science and information theory 101.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Akathisia* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think with the AudioDesk system, you could rip a CD with stringent settings, then have the CD tweaked, do it again, and possibly hear the results. This is what I plan on doing, and as long as it is ok, I will post short snippets of the songs._

 

A better test, if you are willing to do so, would be to play the cut and uncut disc on both a consumer-grade CD player and a the highest "quality" CD player you have access to. Using the digital out, record the PCM coming from the digital out of both players for a selected track and compare that to an MD5 hash-verified EAC rip of the same track in both states. Using foobar (which I believe has a feature that will help you line up the recorded segments with each other), you can then compare bit-for-bit what came out in each event. Although it probably won't be necessary, you may repeat this process several times for greater accuracy.

 --Chris


----------



## Anders

Its is not usually argued that the effect of CD-treatments has anything to do with that reproduction is not bit-perfect at the digital out. If someone has said so in this tread I have missed it. Such a measurement should therefore be meaningless. 

 I have not pretended to be able to explain why the the AudioDesk works. I cannot either understand why a user should be required to explain the physical mechanisms. When persons who have not tried themselves argue that a tweak is theoretically impossible, it is not possible for me to know if they are knowledgeable and right, knowledgeable but wrong on this issue or just charlatans. Why should I believe more in their untested theories than in my experience? 
 It is possible that the transport has no importance if you have s-lock dual DLL but the argument is not very convincing - hempcamp said it should not differ. I have not tested exactly this but in my experience the transport and CD treatment has importance in varying degree, including that is sometimes not hearable.

 My principal conclusion of CD treatment and transport issues is that the CD is a medium with serious flaws, not that everyone should by an AudioDesk. I expect that the CD will be replaced by memory players and hard-disk based systems. These are still in their infancy and I wait a little before buying one. But I am afraid that this is also snake-oil! If CD reproduction is bit-perfect and the the DAC has jitter-reduction we are already close to perfection, theoretically.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fkclo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I know very little about audio electronics but it keeps me wondering if "error correction" is so powerful then why people are spending some much money and time to invest on new transport mechanism ? 

 I would have assume if vibration is high, there is a way to "correct" the error. If the laser beam is not vertical, there is another way to "correct" the error. If the beam intensity fluctuates, there should be yet another way to correct the error. And if error correction will end up 100% bit -perfect transfer for data, then why CD players have such a wide price range - from US$100 to US$30,000 ? Why Esoteric is getting so much fame from its VRDS transport ? And why Philips still keep coming up with new CD servos 20 years after CD was born ?

 Also related, if CD data pick up is made so exact by error correction then why people are coming with different CD media / material - Alloy Gold, 24k Gold, LPCD (black high density plastic ?), and even pure glass.... Shouldn't any imperfections in the CD media be "corrected" so that there is no need for all these ? 

 Sometimes, I think that music listening is like food and wine tasting. It is all about senses. I am pretty sure there are scientific explanations behind, I doubt if we have all the answers today. As someone keep reminding me at work : "You don't know what you don't know", and I agree - after all, the progress of science is driven by what we do not know, not what we know already.

 Cheers,
 F. Lo_

 

Because people will spend a lot of money for peace of mind. There is no need for a $7k transport. And the issues with burned cd's, is that they can degrade. Stuff like the gold CD's are either snake oil or designed to last longer, it depends.

 Wine is double-blind tested. Audio is not. And comparing it with food tasting? What?

 Wine and food would be the *music*, the plate and glass and fork et al. would be the cables and etc. in your shoddy analogy.

 Stop insulting chefs, musicians, and wine producers.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Anders* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Its is not usually argued that the effect of CD-treatments has anything to do with that reproduction is not bit-perfect at the digital out. If someone has said so in this tread I have missed it. Such a measurement should therefore be meaningless. 

 I have not pretended to be able to explain why the the AudioDesk works. I cannot either understand why a user should be required to explain the physical mechanisms. When persons who have not tried themselves argue that a tweak is theoretically impossible, it is not possible for me to know if they are knowledgeable and right, knowledgeable but wrong on this issue or just charlatans. Why should I believe more in their untested theories than in my experience? 
 It is possible that the transport has no importance if you have s-lock dual DLL but the argument is not very convincing - hempcamp said it should not differ. I have not tested exactly this but in my experience the transport and CD treatment has importance in varying degree, including that is sometimes not hearable.

 My principal conclusion of CD treatment and transport issues is that the CD is a medium with serious flaws, not that everyone should by an AudioDesk. I expect that the CD will be replaced by memory players and hard-disk based systems. These are still in their infancy and I wait a little before buying one. But I am afraid that this is also snake-oil! If CD reproduction is bit-perfect and the the DAC has jitter-reduction we are already close to perfection, theoretically._

 

If this, thing, didn't alter the bit-stream, then, what exactly is it doing? CD's store data, ie. bits. CD players et al. read the bits. As long as the bits are read correctly (ie. bit-perfect), then nothing else matters.

 Now, let's step away from the hole bit-perfect argument and the like. Ignoring all that, what would this tweak even do? Such a minuscule amount of material is trimmed away, it is unlikely that it would have any effect (affect? I can never seem to use those two words correctly) on how the disc spins, or anything. Even ignoring the whole bit-perfect thing, this tweak makes no sense.


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Anders* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_When persons who have not tried themselves argue that a tweak is theoretically impossible, it is not possible for me to know if they are knowledgeable and right, knowledgeable but wrong on this issue or just charlatans. Why should I believe more in their untested theories than in my experience?_

 

My thoughts exactly. While I am genuinely impressed with the knowledge that some of these same people seem to have, I'm more impressed by what I've heard with my own two ears, and have observed others hearing those same things for themselves. There is no snake oil to be found in my listening chair, just trimmed and non-trimmed CDs; the trimmed ones are invariably more resolving. The differences are not night and day, but are clearly audible whether you know which version of the same CD you're listening to or not. 

 I'm sure this thread will now carry on for pages and pages, gleefully ignoring these types of responses that have been born in experience. Or perhaps we'll be quoted and told once again what idiots we are for believing what we've heard for ourselves over and over again.


----------



## Akathisia

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm sure this thread will now carry on for pages and pages, gleefully ignoring these types of responses that have been born in experience. Or perhaps we'll be quoted and told once again what idiots we are for believing what we've heard for ourselves over and over again._

 

I agree. I would love to see threads like this flourish, so as users begin to have their own experiences they could share. But in the next day or so, It will degenerate into the same mudslinging as usual.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Anders* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If CD reproduction is bit-perfect and the the DAC has jitter-reduction we are already close to perfection, theoretically._

 

Not at all. There are so many other factors *that actually matter*, that actually have scientific challenges and explanations when it comes to the authentic reproduction of audio. On the recording end there is much that could be improved with the mastering quality of the source material, the quality and placement of the microphones; on the playback end, again, it is worth worrying over speakers (that actually have measurable, explainable differences), speaker placement, room acoustics, etc.

 You would be far better served to put $600 more into your speakers and room acoustics than to purchase a lathe for your CDs. But if you want to throw out your money on something that defies the basic tenets of finite set mathematics and information theory, go for it!

 --Chris


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You would be far better served to put $600 more into your speakers and room acoustics than to purchase a lathe for your CDs. But if you want to throw out your money on something that defies the basic tenets of finite set mathematics and information theory, go for it!

 --Chris_

 

Please, please do me a favor. I will send you my next three paychecks, straight up cash money, and you can tell me what audio gear I am getting with my money. Does that sound like a fair deal? I could use a new headphone amp, but you may have opinions otherwise... feel free to override any of my flawed, biased, subjective leanings. Unfortunately, I own no test gear, and have no way of verifying any specifications and/or common measurements of my audio gear. I don't remember any of my physics classes, so I'm completely daft as far as scientificness is concerned.


 what if I don't like the way my new gear sounds?
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 even worse, what if it fails a DBT?


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I could use a new headphone amp, but you may have opinions otherwise... feel free to override any of my flawed, biased, subjective leanings. Unfortunately, I own no test gear, and have no way of verifying any specifications and/or common measurements of my audio gear. I don't remember any of my physics classes, so I'm completely daft as far as scientificness is concerned.

 what if I don't like the way my new gear sounds?
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 even worse, what if it fails a DBT?
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

The word "subjectivty" gets bandied about and abused on head-fi like nowhere else. Subjectivity in audio begins with the ear canal. Every single phenomena prior to that point takes place outside the observer, and therefore is measurable in an objective manner. Thus, any perceived difference between two events whose physical measurements are identical is psychological.

 It doesn't take a physicist, mathematician, engineer, or rocket scientist to understand any of this. No one seems to believe them anyway! It does, perhaps, take a psychologist to demonstrate that any perceived difference between two otherwise equal sensory stimulations is in your head, literally. But head-fi forbids psychologists and their silly DBTs!

 There IS subjectivity in headphones because there are measurable differences between each model, and therefore the possibility of a personal selection as to which one sounds "better" exists. There IS subjectivity, to a lesser degree, in headphone amps because many of them have measurable differences (that some would see as a flaw, others as "more musical" or "warmer"). There IS NOT subjectivity when it comes to verifiable data passing between point A and point B, *because there is no subject*.

 --Chris


----------



## vcoheda

i believe this thing works. i would buy it, but i don't want to carve up all my CDs.


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ There IS NOT subjectivity when it comes to verifiable data passing between point A and point B, *because there is no subject*.

 --Chris_

 

The subject is the CD, a physical thing. Some are trimmed, some are not. The ones that are trimmed sound better. Everyone who has ever done the comparisons can pick them apart without any problem at all. What's so hard to understand about that?


----------



## oicdn

I side with wmcmanus....who the hell cares WHY (unless you're trying to reproduce it) there's an improvement. If it's clearly audible and unanimously obvious it's an improvement, why the heck are people trying to refute it? Because it's not a traditional/conventional means? Neither is a helicopter, but it flies. Just accept the fact that it works and be done with it. If you don't believe it or are skeptical, shut up, drop some cash and find out for yourself if you really are _that_ curious about it. I'm sure there's a return policy....take advantage of it. At the very least, or if you don't or don't want to pay the premium to have the unit yourself, pay them $5 on a CD you know REALLY well or have two of and do the comparison for yourself.


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oicdn* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_At the very least, or if you don't or don't want to pay the premium to have the unit yourself, pay them $5 on a CD you know REALLY well or have two of and do the comparison for yourself._

 

It would be a waste of their time and money even if it's only $5 and 5 minutes, because theoretically there cannot possibly be any difference; thus, no matter what they might hear, it will all be in their heads anyway. Such a test would only prove to themselves what they already know without bothering to listen for to begin with. Plus it would take away from the time they could otherwise spend explaining to the rest of us why we're wrong about what we're hearing.


----------



## oicdn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It would be a waste of their time and money even if it's only $5 and 5 minutes, because theoretically there cannot possibly be any difference; thus, no matter what they might hear, it will all be in their heads anyway. Such a test would only prove to themselves what they already know without bothering to listen for to begin with. *Plus it would take away from the time they could otherwise spend explaining to the rest of us why we're wrong about what we're hearing.*_

 

hahaha...point taken.


----------



## The Pieman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It would be a waste of their time and money even if it's only $5 and 5 minutes, because theoretically there cannot possibly be any difference; thus, no matter what they might hear, it will all be in their heads anyway. Such a test would only prove to themselves what they already know without bothering to listen for to begin with. Plus it would take away from the time they could otherwise spend explaining to the rest of us why we're wrong about what we're hearing._

 


 Very well put. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I could not agree more.

 It is not an absolute scientifically, therefore it couldn't possibly be true, could it? (Tongue firmly in cheek)

 cheers
 Simon


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ There IS NOT subjectivity when it comes to verifiable data passing between point A and point B, *because there is no subject*.

 --Chris_

 

That's all well and good, but it isn't a measurement device or a testing apparatus that is enjoying the music. I do not 'listen' to measurements, nor could I even hear them - however, I stand to benefit from them being used by an engineer or a designer who crafts an audio component. Verifiable data may afford a "better" music listening experience in someone's opinion, but in no way do I 'listen' to verifiable data. 

 So I ask:

 To what end? Is the end ultimately a mix of subjective and objective discrimination? Isn't it a pair of human ears at the end of the signal chain?


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The differences are not only audible but easy to pick out, and not just by me but by anyone who I had sit in the listening chair. I did informal experiments with 4 or 5 people one day. In no time they could identify which disc was being played. They would either say "trimmed" or "not trimmed" and would be right at least 80% of the time._

 

Wearing my scientists hat now Wayne, just to point out that it's important to realize that your tests were single blind tests, which can't eliminate the possibility of experimenter's bias. Not to imply anything since you well mentioned, yours were informal experiments.

 In general, that 80% success rate you report should necessarily be taken with a large grain of salt then. A similar success rate from a -curse word warning 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




- rigurously executed DBT, however, would be significant support for this device making a difference in CD playback quality.

 Hat off, and flame suit on


----------



## bigshot

A couple of questions...

 If shaving the edges of a CD made it play with better sound, then ripping a CD with EAC to a hard drive (avoiding any possible errors) and playing it back on a PC should sound better than playing it in a standalone CD player. Is this correct?

 CDs contain layers which are bonded together. Around the edges is lacquer to seal them. Laserdiscs were subject to contamination in the layers called "laser rot". Does eliminating the seal at the outside edge of a CD create a risk of long term damage to the CD?

  Quote:


 I do not 'listen' to measurements, nor could I even hear them 
 

You listen to measurable aspects of sound all the time... frequencies, dynamics, distortion rates, etc. Measurements aren't "bad". They can be your friend. You just have to have the experience to know what the numbers actually mean. Better numbers doesn't mean better sound if the numbers represent sound outside our range of hearing. There are a lot of people who don't seem to understand that, and that's led to a backlash against a perfectly legitimate tool for helping to isolate problems and improve sound.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Akathisia

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A couple of questions...

 If shaving the edges of a CD made it play with better sound, then ripping a CD with EAC to a hard drive (avoiding any possible errors) and playing it back on a PC should sound better than playing it in a standalone CD player. Is this correct?

 CDs contain layers which are bonded together. Around the edges is lacquer to seal them. Laserdiscs were subject to contamination in the layers called "laser rot". Does eliminating the seal at the outside edge of a CD create a risk of long term damage to the CD?

 You listen to measurable aspects of sound all the time... frequencies, dynamics, distortion rates, etc. Measurements aren't "bad". They can be your friend. You just have to have the experience to know what the numbers actually mean. Better numbers doesn't mean better sound if the numbers represent sound outside our range of hearing. There are a lot of people who don't seem to understand that, and that's led to a backlash against a perfectly legitimate tool for helping to isolate problems and improve sound.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Bigshot, that is one of the best posts I think I have read by you (or any of the tweak-skeptics) posted in this part of the forum. These are the kind of questions that can spur healthy debate.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In general, that 80% success rate you report should necessarily be taken with a large grain of salt then. A similar success rate from a -curse word warning 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




- rigurously executed DBT, however, would be significant support for this device making a difference in CD playback quality._

 

Even double-blind, 80% would not be a very rigorous proof of the device's alleged abilities. Keep in mind that you could achieve 50% just by luck when comparing two sources. 50% is a coin-toss, 80% is barely a significant value after a fair number of trials with a single observer. Not to mention that you would need to make 2 determinations in 2 trials: one to see if there is an audible difference to the listener, and a second to see if the listener consistently identifies one as superior to the other.

 This thread is a glaring example of how magicians make money. Sure, empiricism is nice, and science too is based strongly on empiricism, but our minds are always in a conspiracy with our senses to fool us.

 By the way, I am not mocking the intelligence of anyone who believes in this device. The brightest people in the world are subject to misbelief.

 I regret that people think that the burden is on we skeptics to prove the device doesn't work. When a new hypothesis goes against an accepted theory (which in this case includes Reed-Solomon polynomial math and the principle that electrically or optically transferred binary data carries with it no data besides itself), it is the onus of the one who proposes the new hypothesis to provide statistically significant evidence that the hypothesis is true.

 I do this only because I don't want others to fall into the same trap, not because I think I have any chance of convincing you to re-evaluate your own entrenched beliefs. Such is my right, and why whether you think so or not, this is a healthy debate.

 --Chris


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You listen to measurable aspects of sound all the time..._

 

You were so close! But I've fixed it for you:

 "You listen to sounds which have measurable aspects all the time"

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You just have to have the experience to know what the numbers actually mean. Better numbers doesn't mean better sound..._

 

And that, my friend, is the meat and potatoes of this entire argument... 

 study, learn, then listen... _just listen_. If it sounds like crap, then what's the point of measurements?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I do this only because I don't want others to fall into the same trap, not because I think I have any chance of convincing you to re-evaluate your own entrenched beliefs. Such is my right, and why whether you think so or not, this is a healthy debate.

 --Chris_

 

Likewise! I'd even go so far as to say we're all here to enjoy listening to music, once you loose sight of that goal, you've fallen into the same trap.

 Go.

 And.

 Listen.

 To.

 Music.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Even double-blind, 80% would not be a very rigorous proof of the device's alleged abilities. Keep in mind that you could achieve 50% just by luck when comparing two sources. 50% is a coin-toss, 80% is barely a significant value after a fair number of trials with a single observer. Not to mention that you would need to make 2 determinations in 2 trials: one to see if there is an audible difference to the listener, and a second to see if the listener consistently identifies one as superior to the other._

 

I understand your point, well taken. Yet I still think 80% in this case would be pretty strong support.

 Even if we give the benefit of the doubt to the device, it is reasonable to think that some CDs may not benefit at all from the trimming, as far as final perceivable sound quality improvement. So achieving +/-80% consistently (in several reruns of the test, even from only one same subject under the test) in a DBT, trying different CDs in different reruns, would strongly support the device's benefits.

 But in fact, I wasn't thinking about just one subject. I was thinking more along the lines of a large enough study, with let's say 50 or 100 subjects. Achieving an overall 80% accurate classifications of trimmed vs. not trimmed from such a study would also be pretty high I think, once again considering that maybe not in all CDs the application of the trimming does allow differentiation in playback.

 For the record Hempcamp, I haven't heard any CD's trimmed by this device, but I don't believe this trimming is beneficial.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_our minds are always in a conspiracy with our senses to fool us._

 

x2


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But in fact, I wasn't thinking about just one subject. I was thinking more along the lines of a large enough study, with let's say 50 or 100 subjects. Achieving an overall 80% accurate classifications of trimmed vs. not trimmed from such a study would also be pretty high I think, once again considering that maybe not in all CDs the application of the trimming does allow differentiation in playback._

 

Correct. If I'm doing the calculation right, as a rough estimate, for 95% validity, you would be expected to get it right 9 out of 10 times or more in 10 trials, but only 60 times out of 100 in 100 trials. So 80 out of 100 would be significant.

 --Chris


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wearing my scientists hat now Wayne, just to point out that it's important to realize that your tests were single blind tests, which can't eliminate the possibility of experimenter's bias. Not to imply anything since you well mentioned, yours were informal experiments.

 In general, that 80% success rate you report should necessarily be taken with a large grain of salt then. A similar success rate from a -curse word warning 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





- rigurously executed DBT, however, would be significant support for this device making a difference in CD playback quality.

 Hat off, and flame suit on 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

No worries, Raul. We're still pals! Thanks for the link. It correctly points out that I forgot to use the central limit theorem in my listening tests. In fact, I didn't do any square roots at all. 

 But imagine that you're in a busy section of Manhattan and need to walk 5 block to get from one building to another; two blocks in one direction and 3 in the other. No matter how you might chart your course, the distance you need to travel is 5 blocks. You know it, and there is no way of refuting it because the big buildings all get in the way of the straight line that OLS regression suggests is the path you ought to walk. You know it's 5 blocks, but your measurement device keeps telling you that it's the square root of 13 (i.e., the square root of 2 squared plus 3 squared since those are how far the data points are off of the goodness of fit line). In other words, sometimes scientific measurement just doesn't fit with observable reality. 

 Or to put it another way, you can pull the wrong tool out of your tool kit. Worse yet, you might encounter a job for which you don't have the proper tool. Worse still, you may encounter a job for which the proper tool has not yet been created. Or to put it yet another way, I think that it's entirely possible and dare I say probable that there are things that we humans are capable of hearing with our own two ears (and rather effortlessly at that) for which science hasn't yet caught up. 

 Not saying that science is incapable of developing measurement devices that are as complicated and capable (or indeed much more complicated and capable) than the human ear in conjunction with the human brain, but it is at least possible (or so I surmise) that not everything that is measurable is being properly measured at this point in time. I'm not sure what relevance, if any, this proposition may have on the debate at hand, nor that it would even matter to anyone (on either side of the debate) if we could pinpoint what its implications might be. Just throwing out the possibility that science, too, has its limitations.

 Kind reminds of when you and Guru and I were in Tampa many years ago after the first-ever Florida meet, doing some informal listening tests as we sat around a coffee table. You picked up on something really funky going on with the CD3000's. You were hearing it clearly and describing it well. I couldn't quite pick up on it myself, but you were convinced, so I nodded along. My not hearing it didn't mean that it didn't exist, or that you weren't hearing it, so I went along with the program. I could have just as easily argued with you, but you were hearing it with your own ears and were convinced of it, time and time again as you kept playing the same section of the song in question over and over again. How could I refute that?

 You were trusting your ears and I trusted what you were telling me that your ears were telling you. But I was probably wrong, and I'm Ok with that. Except that it would mean that you weren't hearing what you thought you were hearing. Are you Ok with that?


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Correct. If I'm doing the calculation right, as a rough estimate, for 95% validity, you would be expected to get it right 9 out of 10 times or more in 10 trials, but only 60 times out of 100 in 100 trials. So 80 out of 100 would be significant._

 

I actually didn't get down to the significance calculations  Lazy of me. I used "significant" in a loose informal way meaning "strong enough" support; not necessarily "statistically significant." Even though, of course, the statistical definitions are based on the same intuitions I was thinking of.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* 
_No worries, Raul. We're still pals!_

 

Of course we are Wayne! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* 
_Kind reminds of when you and Guru and I were in Tampa many years ago after the first-ever Florida meet, doing some informal listening tests as we say around a coffee table. You picked up on something really funky going on with the CD3000's._

 

Gee good memory! If I remember well the culprit was the bass, in the CD3Ks too overpowering (to my ears) when driving them with the Microzotl. Senn HD600's and R10's sounded absolutely great from the Microzotl, but the CD3K's to my ears were noticeably boomier on certain songs (Madonna, Perfect Circle.)


----------



## Wmcmanus

Raul, I've just edited the end of my last post (must have been while you were replying). Reread the last 2 paragraphs of that post. I'd be interested in your reaction!

 Madonna, huh? That must have been the problem. Listening to that kind of c*** will mess up anyone's head! You know, it took me about 3 years in the early 80s to realize that Madonna and Cyndi Lauper were two different people. Ok, so I'm kidding, but that's about how much attention I paid to that attention seeking w****. 

 (Boy, that was a fun use of the **** key!)


----------



## rsaavedra

Yes I'm ok with that Wayne. I'm aware of what's so commonly said here on Head-fi, that our hearing senses are all different; and I'm also aware of the fact that my senses, my hearing and my brain, can play very subtle tricks on me as well as other people's brains on them.

 I'd like to quote part of the Critical Thinking entry in Wikipedia, which has lots of advice on becoming aware of our own cognitive bias, and how to try to overcome it:
  Quote:


 There is no simple way to reduce one's bias. There are, however, ways that one can begin to do so. The most important require developing one's intellectual empathy and intellectual humility. The first requires extensive experience in entering and accurately constructing points of view toward which one has negative feelings. The second requires extensive experience in identifying the extent of one's own ignorance in a wide variety of subjects (ignorance whose admission leads one to say, "_I thought I knew, but I merely believed_"). 
 


 I always try to avoid saying _I know_ something, because indeed most things in our so called "knowledge" boil down to being matters of holding a belief, rather than having actual direct knowledge of a universally accepted truth on the subject in question.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Madonna, huh? That must have been the problem. Listening to that kind of c*** will mess up anyone's head! You know, it took me about 3 years in the early 80s to realize that Madonna and Cyndi Lauper were two different people. Ok, so I'm kidding, but that's about how much attention I paid to that attention seeking w****. 

 (Boy, that was a fun use of the **** key!)_

 












 LOL!

 Still, that kind of c*** sounded great out of the Microzotl --> R10's and HD600's 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Not so from the Microzotl --> CD3K's; once again, to my ears.


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes I'm ok with that Wayne. I'm aware of what's so commonly said here on Head-fi, that our hearing senses are all different; and I'm also aware of the fact that my senses, my hearnig and my brain, can play very subtle tricks on me as well as other people's brains on them.

 I'd like to quote part of the Critical Thinking entry in Wikipedia, which has lots of advice on becoming aware of our own unconscious cognitive biases, and how to try to overcome those biases:

 I always try to avoid saying I know something, because indeed most things in our so called "knowledge" boil down to being matters of holding a belief, rather than having actual direct knowledge of a universally accepted truth on the subject in question._

 

Good post, and well put by both yourself and the source you quote. I think that often times this is essentially the nub of the "problem" (such that it really is a problem) in discussion forums such as Head-Fi. 

 You have one person who is tying to say, "Hey I really like the way these trimmed discs sound..." Then you have another person who is saying, "No, that can't be..." In truth, each is finding the thread to be interesting (at least initially) for an entirely different reason. One is sort of happy that he's not the only nut case that can hear the difference that the tweak in question produces, and the other is wanting to engage in an intellectual discussion about all sorts of other things (i.e., is in the critical thinking mode). Neither is trying to do any harm, and both believe in what they are attempting to point out. 

 But you don't have to forever remain in the critical thinking mode, lest you drive yourself nuts trying to figure out which way to turn every door knob you encounter. Try it a couple of different ways; one of them is bound to work just fine. I think that listening to music can have that same doorknob quality. You don't necessarily need to think all that much about it, and often the less you think about it the more enjoyable it becomes. Yet, there are of course times that you should question and "study" music (as well as musical reproduction) and to be "serious" about the whole process. Without cycling back and forth into those phases your knowledge and understanding of the hobby that you so love will never expand. But it's definitely a Catch 22.

 How does all of this play out in a forum like Head-Fi? Well, we have a lot of people here who approach the hobby in a lot of different ways. Some take it all much more seriously than do others (whether they regard themselves as objectivists, subjectivists, or as being capable of looking at things with a healthy combination of each). So while one is just having fun and sharing his or her experiences, naturally someone else will come along and point out the potential (or even absolute) flaws in his or her logic, or that what is being proposed is a physical impossibility (at least as best that observer understands the situation). 

 All to be expected, and nothing really "wrong" with either, as far as I'm concerned. In other words, so long as I'm being honest and not intentionally misleading when I say that in my experience this device works as described and improves sound quality and resolution (quite clearly, in my mind, to the point where there is no debate at all based on my observations), then that's fine. I'd be wrong not to share my experience since so few people here at Head-Fi have any experience with this device. Yet, at the same time, it's perfectly fine for those who don't believe it to state their reasons as to why they think it can't possibly work as described (even though they are wrong! he he). It's all a part of what we do here and is to be expected.

 Of course when someone comes along and spams the thread with "snake oil..." and contributes nothing of substance, they shouldn't be surprised if they are greeted with a response like, "academic idiot..." or the like. But thankfully there hasn't been too much of that.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_it's perfectly fine for those who don't believe it to state their reasons as to why they think it can't possibly work as described (*even though they are wrong!* he he)._

 

You _believe_ so, based on your experience. Similarly, the skeptics _believe_ that you are wrong, based on their experience and/or what they _know_ (or believe they know) about CD reproduction technology.

 I'm not saying much there. Just illustrating again, mostly we have beliefs instead of true verifiable and unquestionable knowledge. That's the case in particular with respect to questionable matters that haven't been settled and haven't achieved universal acceptance. 

 Regardless of how firmly we state our alleged knowledge, it's mostly just beliefs. Saying we _know_ something, or that I am right and this or that person is _wrong_ about such subjects just indicates how firmly fixed in our beliefs we are; says very little if anything about the subject under discussion.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_study, learn, then listen... just listen. If it sounds like crap, then what's the point of measurements?_

 

Because if you don't try to figure out exactly what is causing your system to sound bad, you have no clue how to put together a plan of attack to correct it. Randomly flailing around trying to find what "sounds good" is great if you have unlimited time and unlimited money. For the real world, it makes sense to try to understand why you're hearing what you're hearing.

 There's a fundamental disconnect between audiophiles of the 50s-70s and today's audiophiles. The old timers I learned about hifi from talked constantly about how to measure and improve specs. They understood what the numbers meant and they *used* that knowledge to put together great sounding systems. Numbers that didn't translate into good sound didn't matter. They knew the difference.

 Today, that seems to have been replaced by a consumer model. You go out and buy the latest magical gadget that promises better sound. You don't try to understand how it works, or even determine *whether* it works... You just buy it and try it. If it doesn't work as well as you'd like it to, you just go out and buy some other magical black box to fix the fix. With every component, you get a ream of techno-double-talk to reassure you that someone has taken the time to think all that bothersome stuff out for you. No need to think! Just sign the credit card receipt!

 These must be heady days for high end stereo salesmen!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_it is at least possible (or so I surmise) that not everything that is measurable is being properly measured at this point in time._

 

You'd be surprised what was known as far back as the 1920s, when Bell Labs was doing the pioneering research on sound reproduction. There are fundamental principles of acoustics that every acoustician knows from his first year of college that the average audiophile has never bothered to understand and apply to his rig. Instead of throwing up our hands and saying, "Well there must be *something* we don't know yet", it's better to take what we *do* know and apply it intelligently. There are plenty of perfectly understood aspects of sound that remain unaddressed in most audiophile systems. Deal with those before you start chasing down the "plasma fields" and "fourth dimensional rifts".

 When one takes the attitude that "science doesn't know everything- so therefore I won't give it credence", they're basically choosing to remain willfully ignorant.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Of course when someone comes along and spams the thread with "snake oil..." and contributes nothing of substance, they shouldn't be surprised if they are greeted with a response like, "academic idiot._

 

And likewise, when someone spams a thread saying "you can't know until you've heard MY equipment with MY ears" they shouldn't be surprised if they get a similar response... except without the "academic" part.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But you don't have to forever remain in the critical thinking mode, lest you drive yourself nuts trying to figure out which way to turn every door knob you encounter._

 

Missed replying to that sentence in my previous post.

 Your suggestion does go against the general advice with respect to when to remain in the critical thinking mode: basically, at all times. Once again, quoting Wikipedia:

  Quote:


 Critical thinking is useful only in those situations where human beings need to solve problems, make decisions, or decide in a reasonable and reflective way what to believe or what to do.(Robert Ennis) *That is, just about everywhere and all the time.* Critical thinking is important wherever the quality of human thinking significantly impacts the quality of life (of any sentient creature).


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There's a fundamental disconnect between audiophiles of the 50s-70s and today's audiophiles. The old timers I learned about hifi from talked constantly about how to measure and improve specs.

 Today, that seems to have been replaced by a consumer model. You go out and buy the latest magical gadget that promises better sound._

 


 Steve, I don't want to p*ss in your wheaties here, but this comes across as a bit of a personal issue for you. When were you so maligned by some young whipper-snapper that generation/age based issues became the culprit for the disintegration of good ol' fashioned audio? Did the Yuppie stereo salesman rip you off?

 Get with it, and drop the blame game. Not relying on specifications has little to do with a "consumer model", nor is it some problem with the young folk.


----------



## bigshot

I don't have to spend my time in an audio forum on the internet. If you want to know why I'm here offering my observations, it's simple. When I was starting out in hifi, there were some really experienced guys who took the time to explain things to me. They were patient. I was appreciative. Today, the equivalent of this sort of "passing the torch" goes on in internet discussion boards. I share what I know.

 There is one difference though... When I was asking questions of the hifi guys back in the mid-70s, I was respectful and I didn't pretend to know more than they did. It's a lot easier to do that behind a keyboard and made up posting name. That's why the amount of noise to signal is so high today. But I'm sure there are those out there who are filtering out the crap and putting together useful information that they'll put into practice.

 You're right about one thing though... Not relying on specifications isn't "the consumer model" and it isn't a problem peculiar to youth. It's just plain old willful ignorance. Willful ignorance knows no age or price bracket.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Your suggestion does go against the general advice with respect to when to remain in the critical thinking mode: basically, at all times._

 

This tidbit plus some of the other discussion in the other threads reminds me of a quote by William James that I think is very applicable to what's being discussed:

 "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for everyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."

 That means, sometimes, not trusting ones own perceptions until you figure out exactly why you are sensing what you do.

 --Chris


----------



## patalp

Headfi just gets more entertaining day after day. 200 dollar recabling for 170 dollar headphones and now this. Cutting your CDs and adding "transparency, detail, and better bass"


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And likewise, when someone spams a thread saying "you can't know until you've heard MY equipment with MY ears" they shouldn't be surprised if they get a similar response... except without the "academic" part.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Actually, I think the "snake oil" comments are pretty much accusing people who have shared their real life experiences (based on their equipment and their ears) as being idiots, so there is really no sense in being redundant. 

 I was using the word academic to be kind. I agree that it would be silly to ask someone to listen to my equipment with my ears. That we can agree would be a physical impossibility. It's their refusal to listen with their own ears that makes their arguments idiotic, except to the extent that they know it all. Hard to deal with those types even in the best of circumstances.


----------



## fraseyboy

The debate going on in this thread is AWESOME.


----------



## Uncle Erik

How about ripping two identical CDs - one shaved and the other not - and then letting the computer compare the two? Wouldn't be much more difficult to run this test several dozen times, even.

 Would that settle it?


----------



## monolith

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Uncle Erik* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How about ripping two identical CDs - one shaved and the other not - and then letting the computer compare the two? Wouldn't be much more difficult to run this test several dozen times, even.

 Would that settle it?_

 

Seems like that goes back to a comment bigshot made earlier. Since shaving a CD can't add data, only improve the reading of the data, it makes more sense to use a program like EAC that goes to great pains to rip that data very accurately, eliminating or at least substantially reducing read errors.

 Not only does that make it the ideal solution for playing digital music, it also somewhat renders that test you mention unhelpful, as such a program while necessary for getting an accurate rip through which to compare the two would probably iron out the read errors you're trying to compare by virtue of its very accurate reading.

 Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *monolith* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Seems like that goes back to a comment bigshot made earlier. Since shaving a CD can't add data, only improve the reading of the data, it makes more sense to use a program like EAC that goes to great pains to rip that data very accurately, eliminating or at least substantially reducing read errors._

 

You can measure the accuracy of a CD read with a digital error counter, an instrument the very people who engineer these technologies use to test prototypes. So you could also attach one of these devices to the S/PDIF of any CD player and get an error count.

 The problem is, no matter what the results, ears will be ears. Way back in 1990, a former technical editor of hi-fi and Stereo Times magazines did a study of CD coloring and counted errors with a similar device. You can read about the study here. Here we are, 18 years later, and many audio enthusiasts are still coloring or otherwise altering the edges of their CDs.

 --Chris


----------



## melomaniac

Quote:


 my discs have been 1. cut with the Audio Desk, 2. marked with the Audio Desk marker, 3. washed with dish washing solution, 4. treated with Mikro-Smooth, 5. treated Walker's Vivid, and then 6. spun in the Bedini. 
 

wow. awesome that this thread awoke from several years of slumber. can't say that I see the light, but one sure learns a lot about head-fi and audiophilia scanning these discussions... in many directions.


----------



## Elephas

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *monolith* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Seems like that goes back to a comment bigshot made earlier. Since shaving a CD can't add data, only improve the reading of the data, it makes more sense to use a program like EAC that goes to great pains to rip that data very accurately, eliminating or at least substantially reducing read errors._

 

*A bit off-topic, but hopefully interesting and relevant

 I don't think that EAC rips are directly comparable to trimmed physical CDs in this application. By this I mean that trying to isolate the effects of Audio Desk trimmings by comparing them to EAC rips is not really feasible. Trimmed CDs should be compared with untrimmed CDs played through the same transport.

 I use an RME HDSP 9632 sound card's digital output to feed an external DAC, an Esoteric D-05. I've used dBpoweramp, EAC and various drives, including Plextor, to rip CDs and result in supposedly "accurate rips."

 I also use an Esoteric P-05 transport to play CD's. The transport's digital output is also fed to the D-05.

 The RME sound card outputs optical, coax and AES/EBU digital. The P-05 transport outputs iLink 1394, single AES/EBU and dual AES/EBU digital.

 Using the same AES/EBU cable, a Moon Audio D-110 Silver Sonic, I've compared the same song played through the RME sound card to the P-05 transport. The P-05 sounds better.

 I've tried different ways to output digital from the RME sound card, including foobar ASIO configurations, Secret Rabbit Code resampling, FLAC, ALAC and wav formats, iTunes, XXHighEnd and J.River Media players, etc. The P-05 still sounds better. Will it sound even better when the CD's are trimmed with the Audio Desk? The P-05 has a clamping mechanism that may not benefit from trimmed CDs.

 I'm an enthusiastic PC-source user, so I'm not giving up yet. I'm planning to add a word clock module to the 9632 sound card to link it with a G-03X master clock generator. Other options include changing to the AES-32 sound card to allow dual AES/EBU outputs to the DAC, changing to a Firewire interface, or trying a USB DAC device.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually, I think the "snake oil" comments are pretty much accusing people who have shared their real life experiences (based on their equipment and their ears) as being idiots_

 

IGNORANCE is simply not knowing. STUPIDITY is choosing not to know. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant. Mark Twain said, "Everyone is ignorant... just on different subjects." It isn't stupid to make an observation and offer a hypothesis about it. It's only stupid if one refuses to apply critical thinking to test the hypothesis. Making incorrect observations is part of the process of learning... you observe something... you come up with a theory to explain it... you test the theory with critical analysis... if it fails, you come up with another theory and test it. That's thinking things out for yourself, and it's a long way from being stupid. That's the process that took us from Isaac Newton's apple all the way to the moon.

 "Snake oil" doesn't indicate that anyone is stupid. It means that someone is trying to sell something of no value by misrepresenting it.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Elephas* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't think that EAC rips are directly comparable to trimmed physical CDs in this application. By this I mean that trying to isolate the effects of Audio Desk trimmings by comparing them to EAC rips is not really feasible. Trimmed CDs should be compared with untrimmed CDs played through the same transport._

 

I was offering a test to see if trimming a CD made it read with less errors and therefore, sound better. Are you saying that there is some benefit to trimming that doesn't involve improved read accuracy?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Elephas

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I was offering a test to see if trimming a CD made it read with less errors and therefore, sound better. Are you saying that there is some benefit to trimming that doesn't involve improved read accuracy?_

 

I think any potential benefits of trimming will only occur when playing the trimmed CD on a transport that reads in "real-time." According to my understanding, the trimming supposedly helps the transport by making the spinning CD more stable. That's why I'm not sure if an Esoteric VRDS transport or other transports with clamping mechanisms will benefit from trimmed CDs.

 Ripping a CD with EAC involves repeated reading and re-reading of the CD. I believe this process, which should be superior to a "real-time" transport, negates any potential benefits of trimming. The EAC rip is a bit-perfect copy of the data on the CD, whether the CD is trimmed or not.


----------



## EnOYiN

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Elephas* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ripping a CD with EAC involves repeated reading and re-reading of the CD. I believe this process, which should be superior to a "real-time" transport, negates any potential benefits of trimming. The EAC rip is a bit-perfect copy of the data on the CD, whether the CD is trimmed or not._

 

It would still be visible whether EAC is actually re-reading the CD though.


----------



## vcoheda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Elephas* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think any potential benefits of trimming will only occur when playing the trimmed CD on a transport that reads in "real-time." According to my understanding, the trimming supposedly helps the transport by making the spinning CD more stable._

 

that is my understanding of it as well.


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Making incorrect observations is part of the process of learning... you *observe* something... you come up with a *theory* to explain it... you *test* the theory with *critical analysis*... if it fails, you come up with *another theory* and *test* it._

 

Observe, theorize, test, analyze, then another theory and another test, and on it goes in an endless loop. All the while steadfastly refusing to listen for yourself? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 In any case, I'm glad you took the time to explain the difference between ignorance and stupidity. Refusing to listen for yourself will prolong your ignorance. Refusing to observe, theorize, test, analyze, develop another theory and another test will prolong my stupidity.


----------



## vcoheda

some people don't like to know; they just like to argue.


----------



## Chu

I'm curious, has anyone ever tried this with a data cd and compared the subchannel data? It should give a good indication of what's going on.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_All the while steadfastly refusing to listen for yourself? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

This is partially true, but you might already be aware of why. The skeptic won't have his own personal, limited, and potentially misleading hearing sense as ultimate arbiter of his/her own beliefs. That will be the case not because they are simply stubborn or irrationally skeptic, it's precisely because they are rationally skeptic, and because there is strong evidence that our hearing and senses and brain can be misleading.

 You shouldn't be frustrated if skeptics do listen for themselves, agree that apparently some difference might be there, and yet they will remain skeptic. What they hear won't necessarily convince them of the existence of the alleged difference. That awareness of his/her own limitations, and willingness to suspend belief when confronted with insufficient evidence, is what distinguishes a skeptic; not arbitrary stubborness, or simply disbelieving left and right whatever is thrown at them.

 On the other hand, a DBT that can withstand sufficient scrutiny supporting the existence of the alleged difference consistently will indeed cause a shift in the skeptics' beliefs. Even if they actually don't hear the difference! Or even if they actually don't try to hear it for themselves.

 By definition, the skeptic is slow to jump to conclusions, and is slow to accept claims, particularly if they lack sufficient evidence. Evidence presented by our own senses can be insufficient, in fact has been largely shown to be insufficient, regardless of how convincing it might appear to be to ourselves.

 Just as a commonly mentioned example: apparently larger Moon when seen at the horizon. It is actually the same size as always, but our (misleading) vision system makes us believe it is larger.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Elephas* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think any potential benefits of trimming will only occur when playing the trimmed CD on a transport that reads in "real-time."_

 

Yes, I understand that. My question was, why? If it involves reading the information on the disk more accurately (ie: avoiding errors), then playing back a file ripped with EAC should sound exactly the same, since that is by definition an accurate copy. Do you see what I'm getting at? I'm trying to define WHAT it is that trimming does, so we can discuss more than just someone's subjective reaction.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Observe, theorize, test, analyze, then another theory and another test, and on it goes in an endless loop. All the while steadfastly refusing to listen for yourself?_

 

Believe me, I've done a LOT of listening. But that doesn't mean I haven't done a LOT of thinking about what I hear. That's how I can apply principles to solve problems and make my sound better. Random listening returns random results. Focused listening and critical thinking return focused results.

 I've only got 90 some odd years to listen to all the music that I want to listen to. There's a lifetime's worth of music that I haven't heard yet. I don't have time to randomly turn over every pebble on the beach to find what I'm looking for. I've got to be smart about it. Critical thinking leads to solutions to problems.

 Of course a lot of hifi equipment is designed to create and solve its own non-existent problem. (jitter, high end cables, vibration damping on electronics, etc.) That muddies the water and makes it even harder for the average person to reach their true goals. Critical thinking is the knife that slices through the bologna.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## JaZZ

I do have some understanding for _Bigshot_'s standpoint. And in some way I even partially agree with the gist of his post below:

  Quote:


 _...Because if you don't try to figure out exactly what is causing your system to sound bad, you have no clue how to put together a plan of attack to correct it. Randomly flailing around trying to find what "sounds good" is great if you have unlimited time and unlimited money. For the real world, it makes sense to try to understand why you're hearing what you're hearing.

 There's a fundamental disconnect between audiophiles of the 50s-70s and today's audiophiles. The old timers I learned about hifi from talked constantly about how to measure and improve specs. They understood what the numbers meant and they *used* that knowledge to put together great sounding systems. Numbers that didn't translate into good sound didn't matter. They knew the difference.

 Today, that seems to have been replaced by a consumer model. You go out and buy the latest magical gadget that promises better sound. You don't try to understand how it works, or even determine *whether* it works... You just buy it and try it. If it doesn't work as well as you'd like it to, you just go out and buy some other magical black box to fix the fix. With every component, you get a ream of techno-double-talk to reassure you that someone has taken the time to think all that bothersome stuff out for you. No need to think! Just sign the credit card receipt!_ 
 

There has been a thread called «I hate headphones that sound "FUN"» with many Head-Fiers outing themselves as not too much interested in neutrality and accuracy -- they just want «fun» instead, their personal implementation of high fidelity, actually rather euphony. I'm not really opposed to such an approach, but it is indeed an excellent precondition for a rather uncoordinated, unsystematic and erratic search for sonic «improvement», often leading to a V-shaped frequency response, in any event to a pronouncedly impressive characteristic, which most likely will sustainably shape sonic ideals and listening habits -- in a similar way as the regular use of sugar and ketchup will form eating habits in the culinary domain.


  Quote:


 _These must be heady days for high end stereo salesmen!_ 
 

In turn, that's a stereotypical concern I absolutely don't share. Sure, I do care for my own wallet, but I don't for someone else's.

 I know Steve's approach quite well: Speakers and headphones and frequency response aside, everything in audio sounds the same -- roughly spoken. I remember a characteristic example of his sound-editing occupation: a distorted historic recording from a heavily crackling vinyl record turned into a dull and lifeless restoration with just about 5% remaining crackle. Personally I would present a somewhat finer-grained example of my audiophile approach by means of a modern recording with the potential to sound really good after editing. Of course the result would be less black-and-white. (BTW, I make a lot of sound editing myself.) I'm mentioning this example to give the people whom Steve tries to convince by his famous «horse sense» a better impression of his audio(phile) background. 

 Personally I like measuring data as a guideline for device evaluations and first and foremost as a reference to sonic impressions: It's interesting and informative to compare both and draw corresponding conclusions -- some sort of a learning process providing a useful tool in the search for «sonic perfection», for a more systematic approach instead of just relying on reviews. But the personal audition is clearly the final instance and may absolutely invalidate any measuring data. As happened with my UDP-1, which is simply an excellent player to these ears, despite some (minor) data weakness.

 So I wouldn't hesitate to try some unestablished tweaks with questionable physical background -- there's always my trusty ears serving as a judge if it's worth the expense. Some time ago I painted the edges of my CDs black, and I believed that this made the sound better. But over time I kind of «forgot» this tweak -- apparently it didn't make that much of a difference. However, the tweak this thread is about -- cutting a bevel to the CD edge -- seems to work (even) better, so I'll gladly accept the offer from my friend _Anders_ in Sweden and send him a few CD copies for treatment. 
.


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is partially true, but you might already be aware of why. The skeptic won't have his own personal, limited, and potentially misleading hearing sense as ultimate arbiter of his/her own beliefs. That will be the case not because they are simply stubborn or irrationally skeptic, it's precisely because they are rationally skeptic, and because there is strong evidence that our hearing and senses and brain can be misleading.

 You shouldn't be frustrated if skeptics do listen for themselves, agree that apparently some difference might be there, and yet they will remain skeptic. What they hear won't necessarily convince them of the existence of the alleged difference. That awareness of his/her own limitations, and willingness to suspend belief when confronted with insufficient evidence, is what distinguishes a skeptic; not arbitrary stubborness, or simply disbelieving left and right whatever is thrown at them.

 On the other hand, a DBT that can withstand sufficient scrutiny supporting the existence of the alleged difference consistently will indeed cause a shift in the skeptics' beliefs. Even if they actually don't hear the difference! Or even if they actually don't try to hear it for themselves.

 By definition, the skeptic is slow to jump to conclusions, and is slow to accept claims, particularly if they lack sufficient evidence. Evidence presented by our own senses can be insufficient, in fact has been largely shown to be insufficient, regardless of how convincing it might appear to be to ourselves._

 

Ok, so basically the skeptic approaches it all from an academic/critical thinking point of view. I'm not being sarcastic, just trying to understand. Essentially, everything (or at least those things that really matter to them) is based on what the skeptic reads/studies/analyzes and thus "learns" as a result from being intellectually convinced. What science tells the skeptic is true is in fact true even if the skeptic's own ears tell him/her otherwise? Even to the point where the skeptic doesn't even need to bother to listen? Why? Because if whatever the skeptic hears with his/her own ears differs from he/she regards as settled theory, then it must be wrong? Color me blue in the face with confusion. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I guess I didn't study science well enough. My degrees are in accounting, law, and finance. I approach those, and other, fields of knowledge more or less as the skeptic you've described approaches audio, and I can definitely see the benefit in doing so. It's just that, for me anyway, my interest in audio is purely as a hobbiest, and not in the slightest degree as a scientist or any sort of professional. 

 I _like_ to listen to music; I also _like_ to evaluate the differences on the sonic signature that are imparted by the introduction of new links in the audio chain, be they components or be they tweaks. But after I've heard for myself, over and over and over again, how the new element that was inserted into the equation has altered the results, I either decide to "go with it" or ditch it and try something else. 

 If trimmed CDs (with that Audio Desk System) produce a consistently more resolving sound than non trimmed CDs, to my ears (and to the ears of every person, young or old, who has ever done these same listening experiments with me), then what other evidence do I need? If there was no difference in sound, then I'd sell the silly thing to someone who wanted to give it a try for him-or-her-skeptic-self.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm mentioning this example to give the people whom Steve tries to convince by his famous «horse sense» a better impression of his audio(phile) background._

 

I'd like to know why I have to do jack diddly to justify my professionalism to someone who follows me around on an internet discussion board like an angry puppy anonymously tagging insults at the end of my posts. If you have something to offer to the subject do it. Leave me out of your arguments. If your sole purpose is just to slag on me, consider this your shot across the bow... Sit down and shut up. Knowing when to quit is a virtue you could work on acquiring.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Even to the point where the skeptic doesn't even need to bother to listen?_

 

Observation is part of the process... it's just not the last step. A critical thinker wants to know why he is observing what he sees or hears. To figure that out, he tries to isolate the phenomena and tests various hypothesis until he understands what cause is creating the effect.

 For instance, using the CD shaving example. You observed a difference in sound between shaved and unshaved disks. You would want to carefully DBT the observation to isolate it and make sure it isn't a result of subjective error. If it passes that, you would try to figure out what is creating the difference by possible hypothesis... Is it decreased error? Do a checksum to test it. Is it reduced vibration? Test it against a vibrationless source like a hard drive rip. If you can identify the problem, it may lead to ways to improve other components as well. It's worth the effort.

 There are times when you just sit down and listen to music and not worry about all the details. But if your goal is achieving really great sound, you'll want to devote some of your time to smoothing out the wrinkles in your system in an organized way.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ok, so basically the skeptic approaches it all from an academic/critical thinking point of view.... Even to the point where the skeptic doesn't even need to bother to listen? Why? Because if whatever the skeptic hears with his/her own ears differs from he/she regards as settled theory, then it must be wrong? Color me blue in the face with confusion. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

No, it's just that there are thousands of devices out there that claim to have a positive effect on sound and you can't possibly listen to them all. So you use reason to filter out the nonsense from what might be worth trying.

 If a skeptic heard a difference in a bias-proof test, then a skeptic would accept the results and search for an explanation (a new theory).

 Me refusing to give a dubious product like this a try is really no different than you refusing to do a bias-free evaluation (blind ABX) of the product because you are so sure of your own ears. So I guess we're at a draw. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 --Chris


----------



## Malth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, I understand that. My question was, why? If it involves reading the information on the disk more accurately (ie: avoiding errors), then playing back a file ripped with EAC should sound exactly the same, since that is by definition an accurate copy. Do you see what I'm getting at? I'm trying to define WHAT it is that trimming does, so we can discuss more than just someone's subjective reaction.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I thought the same exact thing when I read the OP

 The music on CD's is comprised of 1's and 0's. If you have a program like EAC that can 100% accurately take those 1's and 0's from the CD and put them on your HD, then this should yield better gains.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If a skeptic heard a difference in a bias-proof test, then a skeptic would accept the results and search for an explanation (a new theory)._

 

I'd like to repeat what I wrote in my post. In fact, a skeptic (meaning a critical thinker here) would accept the validity of the device whether hearing the difference or whether not hearing it.

 It might be the case that some people can hear the difference, and some people might not be able to. A bias-proof test, properly scrutinized and rendered adecuate, and with sufficient subjects indicating that there is a difference, or even with just one subject but capable of giving significant enough results consistently, should be strong enough support to accept the legitimacy of the device, even if one subject in particular (e.g. us) cannot (for whatever reason) detect the difference under the same test.

 Of course, not hearing the difference is also plenty strong enough support for not paying any money for the device. You wouldn't be enjoying its benefits after all.

 The thing is, once again, that our ears telling us that we do hear the difference isn't necessarily strong enough evidence to accept whether the device does make a difference at all, to anyone, not even to ourselves, even if we believe we hear the difference. This is because of the sometimes misleading nature of our perception.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Even to the point where the skeptic doesn't even need to bother to listen? Why? Because if whatever the skeptic hears with his/her own ears differs from he/she regards as settled theory, then it must be wrong?_

 

No, no one has said it _must_ be wrong Wayne. But certainly, it _could_ be wrong. Specially if properly carried out tests strongly support the settled theory, in spite of it going against what our senses tell us; and specially, when our senses are known to play misleading tricks on us. (Moon illusion again.)

 You seem to not agree with the fact that our senses are fallible and in some cases can be misleading in very subtle ways, in spite of our best cognitive efforts to not allow them to.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In fact, a skeptic (meaning a critical thinker here) would accept the validity of the device whether hearing the difference or whether not hearing it._

 

I think we're on the same page here. In other words, I (as a skeptic) don't need to hear the difference myself in order to accept the device as valid. But I do need to see (non-anecdotal) evidence that someone else is capable of hearing a difference by using the device.

 What I was getting at was that usually when a skeptic is confronted with a result that seems to go against an accepted belief, it's usually not sufficient to simply accept the new belief. Because until the result is explained or accounted for, there is now a void in the skeptic's system of beliefs. I hope that makes sense?

 Nevertheless, a bias-free test will never prove conclusively that the device doesn't work. You cannot prove that pixies don't exist. Some people will continue to believe in pixies.

 --Chris

 PS -- I've particularly enjoyed reading your posts. Definitely some of the best in this thread.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think we're on the same page here. In other words, I (as a skeptic) don't need to hear the difference myself in order to accept the device as valid. But I do need to see (non-anecdotal) evidence that someone else is capable of hearing a difference by using the device._

 

Exactly! Certainly we were on the same page.

 PS. Thanks for the comments!


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Observation is part of the process... it's just not the last step. A critical thinker wants to know why he is observing what he sees or hears. To figure that out, he tries to isolate the phenomena and tests various hypothesis until he understands what cause is creating the effect.

 For instance, using the CD shaving example. You observed a difference in sound between shaved and unshaved disks. You would want to carefully DBT the observation to isolate it and make sure it isn't a result of subjective error. If it passes that, you would try to figure out what is creating the difference by possible hypothesis... Is it decreased error? Do a checksum to test it. Is it reduced vibration? Test it against a vibrationless source like a hard drive rip. If you can identify the problem, it may lead to ways to improve other components as well. It's worth the effort.

 There are times when you just sit down and listen to music and not worry about all the details. But if your goal is achieving really great sound, you'll want to devote some of your time to smoothing out the wrinkles in your system in an organized way.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

This makes a lot of sense. Thanks.


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, it's just that there are thousands of devices out there that claim to have a positive effect on sound and you can't possibly listen to them all. So you use reason to filter out the nonsense from what might be worth trying.

 If a skeptic heard a difference in a bias-proof test, then a skeptic would accept the results and search for an explanation (a new theory).

 Me refusing to give a dubious product like this a try is really no different than you refusing to do a bias-free evaluation (blind ABX) of the product because you are so sure of your own ears. So I guess we're at a draw. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 --Chris_

 

Essentially you're saying the same thing as Steve and Raul. I can totally understand this approach. I guess part of where I get confused is when I see hints of absolutism in some of the posts from this camp (not necessarily from any of you specifically), and as a result start to wonder how much you could possibly be enjoying the music you're listening to. 

 Of course, deep down, I know that you all do very much enjoy not only the music you listen to but also your participation in the hobby in general, your gear selection process which would obviously follow a more organized and ultimately satisfying path, and this kind of thing where you're "talking shop" so to speak. You perhaps may end up enjoying your listening sessions much more so than would someone who doesn't approach the hobby with so much rigor and critical thinking.

 So, from my perspective (I can't speak for anyone else), it's not so much that I'd be afraid to do a bias-free evaluation of this sort of device (I would, actually, and I wouldn't feel terribly ashamed if I failed the test, despite the egg on face it would bring). It's just that, quite honestly, I would have never even thought about doing something like that. 

 Here's what I did as best I can recall, but it's been a couple of years now:

 I simply listened to several of the discs that I happened to have 2 copies of (one trimmed and one not trimmed) until I got used to them and had a good sense of what I thought the differences were, and I then had someone else randomly insert one or the other disc into my CD player and press play while my back was turned. I was "blind" but my friend wasn't. Yet, he didn't say a word and I wasn't looking at him for any cues that I might be able to read from his body language. 

 Sometimes it would take a lot of hunting around to find a track where I thought I could pick up some audible differences. Even when I could pick up on some differences, they were not night and day and often involved stray bits that were going on in the background and were sonically out of focus. In other words, if you concentrated on the big picture and listened to the music for enjoyment, you probably wouldn't be able to pick up on anything in particular. At best, you might think that one presentation was a little bit more clear and focused than the other. So it really did take some very careful listening with as much attention as possible to subtle cues that you could almost never pick up on in the first pass. But, no doubt, the trimmed discs all resolved slightly better.

 Later that week, several people were over at my place for a "movie night" and I did the same listening tests with 4 or 5 of them by rotating in and out of the listening chair throughout the evening. They all seemed as able as I was to tell the 2 versions apart. To keep things simple, I tried a different set of discs with each person. One would listen to and compare trimmed and untrimmed versions of an Acoustic Alchemy recording. Another would go through the same process for a Duke Ellington recording. Then another would compare a Beatles recording. 

 It took a little explaining on my part. I asked them to listen as carefully as they could to the recording itself, and not so much the music. The key was to see if there was anything that their mind could attach to within 20 or 30 seconds that sounded different in any way from one disc to the next. So I used tracks that had a lot of microdynamics and a sense of movement (the Acoustic Alchemy track) or something that faded in and out. 

 I wouldn't tell them what the differences were that I thought I could hear or where in the track I heard those differences, but I guess there was a bias in the sense that I was looking for external confirmation and thus only asked people to listen to passages that I had in some way identified as being "better" (more resolution) with the trimmed CDs.

 I wasn't specific at all. I just wanted them to tell me whether they thought the 2 discs they listened to were identical, or if not, what differences they thought they were hearing. Whether they thought they were hearing some subtle differences or whether they were really hearing them, I'm not sure, but they were able to tell one disc from the other and know which was which. Not every time, but about 80% of the time (again, as best I recall, but no notes were taken, heck, a party was going on in the next room).

 We called the discs A and B. I'd have them listen to a 30 second segment on A about 3-4 times, then have them do the same thing on B. Then have them turn around so I could randomly insert one or the other for several test trials, but only if they thought that they had picked up on some differences of one variety or another in Phase 1 of their listening session. Most of them did rather easily, but one lady (the wife of one of my colleagues at the time), just kept looking at me with this puzzled expression. She must have gone back and forth between A and B at least 10 times each before she even thought she could differentiate them. 

 But then when she finally decided to spin around and play Phase 2 of the game, she did just fine. She got it right the first time and then wrong 1 or 2 times, and then got it right 4 or 5 times in a row. Then it was comment like, "Ok, so I agree they are different, but you're really splitting hairs." She wasn't too impressed and thought the whole thing was crazy. She might have been guessing in Phase 2, but seemed very focused in Phase 1 and sure acted like she was trying.

 So that was it. I concluded that it made a difference, and in some cases quite a noticeable difference in an overall sense (although not immediately obvious perhaps). I kept trimming discs for a while, and then got kind of bored with it. I suspect that about 1/4th of the CDs in my collection have been trimmed. So it's not an absolute thing for me, just something that I once experimented with and felt that it worked as described, and then kind of forgot about until now.

 If I was going to try to fidget to get the absolute best out of each and every one of my CDs, I'd trim them all. I think it helps and really don't think it can hurt in any way.


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You seem to not agree with the fact that our senses are fallible and in some cases can be misleading in very subtle ways, in spite of our best cognitive efforts to not allow them to._

 

No, I agree with that. I probably just didn't particularly feel like admitting it, especially if it would run counter to some of the other points I was trying to make with my hyperbole. We all do that at times, you know, especially to counter someone else's hyperbole. We all know that we're doing it, but we do it anyway. 

 Were it an essay that I was writing then of course I would do the best job I possibly could to build up all of the strengths of the opposing side's point of view, only to then tear apart the strongest points of their argument with even more pronounced points supporting my perspective.

 But this kind of back and forth is not a debate so much as it is two ways to approach a hobby. I don't want to suffer from too much rigor and vigor in terms of how I approach this (very fun) hobby, lest my hobby suffer rigor mortis (the death of fun). At the same time, I don't want to be blind to reality. In this case, however, I'm pretty sure the silly thing works!


----------



## hempcamp

I really enjoyed reading your last two posts, Wayne.

 I'm glad we've had a good back-and-forth on this thread because I really do think it's fleshed out two competing philosophies deeper than their surface, in a mostly friendly way, which is more than can be said for some of the other threads/forums/debates out there. (Has anyone seen Fremmer's response to Randi's response to Fremmer in the latest Stereophile? Definitely not the road to go down on Randi or Fremmer's part if we ever want some real answers.)

 At the end of the day, I think we can agree on one thing: do whatever it is with your setup that makes you happy, and try to do no harm. Kind of like a Hippocratic Oath for audio enthusiasts!

 --Chris


----------



## nautikal

Wow. I know what I'm doing for my career now. I think I'll buy some magnets at the grocery store and cut and paint them so they look expensive. Then I'll pay 10 people to say that these magnets improve sound quality when placed atop CD players and sell each for $100. Oh, and I'll of course use lots of obscure adjectives when I market my product. Who needs a 9 to 5 job anymore? 

 How some of you go spending thousands of dollars on products that supposedly improve sound without any proof is beyond me. I could put standard engine oil in an expensive looking container and sell it for $50/Oz claiming it improves acceleration by up to 20% and some of you would be all over it. Then you'd be so wrapped up in the euphoria of driving fast that you'd actually believe you accelerated faster. 

 Have any of you studied the scientific method or taken statistic courses lately? There is absolutely *NO* evidence that this tweak is legitimate. Someone's opinion is not evidence. Yet half of you can't wait to drop half a grand on it. This is ridiculous.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nautikal* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Have any of you studied the scientific method or taken statistic courses lately? There is absolutely *NO* evidence that this tweak is legitimate. Someone's opinion is not evidence. Yet half of you can't wait to drop half a grand on it. This is ridiculous._

 

.... says the man with Blue Dragon ICs and Cardas re-cables...

 Sorry, I'm a bit amused, I couldn't help myself. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 --Chris


----------



## nautikal

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_.... says the man with Blue Dragon ICs and Cardas re-cables...

 Sorry, I'm a bit amused, I couldn't help myself. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 --Chris_

 

I knew someone would bring this up...

 I bought the blue dragon ICs used and at a price such that they were the cheapest non-oem ICs I could find. All the other ICs I had or could find were either far more expensive or were tiny in diameter and poorly shielded. The Cardas cable was a DIY after my original HD580 cable broke. If there was a pair of cheap ICs that weren't 2mm in diameter I would have certainly bought those. Likewise, if there was anything cheaper than a cardas DIY yet more durable than the stock cable I would have used those instead. I didn't buy these cables to improve sound as much as I bought them for durability and/or shielding. Then you can add in the fact that there are noticeable differences between a 20 gauge cable and a 40 gauge cable. I can't say the same for coloring on a CD.

 When I bought the blue dragon ICs and Cardas cable at least I knew I was getting ripped off...


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nautikal* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow. I know what I'm doing for my career now. I think I'll buy some magnets at the grocery store and cut and paint them so they look expensive. Then I'll pay 10 people to say that these magnets improve sound quality when placed atop CD players and sell each for $100. Oh, and I'll of course use lots of obscure adjectives when I market my product. Who needs a 9 to 5 job anymore? _

 

Do you think anybody would hear the difference?
  Quote:


 How some of you go spending thousands of dollars on products that supposedly improve sound without any proof is beyond me. 
 

I do. If (and only if) I hear the difference. Proof or no proof, I couldn't care less about proof. 
 And if I find the difference I hear worth the price.
  Quote:


 I could put standard engine oil in an expensive looking container and sell it for $50/Oz claiming it improves acceleration by up to 20% and some of you would be all over it. Then you'd be so wrapped up in the euphoria of driving fast that you'd actually believe you accelerated faster. 
 

Why would that happen?
 Don't you think I would get back at you when I don't experience a 20% better acceleration? 

  Quote:


 Have any of you studied the scientific method or taken statistic courses lately? There is absolutely *NO* evidence that this tweak is legitimate. Someone's opinion is not evidence. Yet half of you can't wait to drop half a grand on it. This is ridiculous. 
 

There is absolutely no reason at all to prove the legitimacy of a tweak.
 It just has to provide customer satisfaction.
 If the product satisfies you: buy it (if the price is right for you too).
 If it doesn't satisfy you (either because you don't experience an improvement or because you think the explanation of the salesman is lacking or because the weather is bad or whatever): don't buy it.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nautikal* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I knew someone would bring this up...

 I bought the blue dragon ICs used and at a price such that they were the cheapest non-oem ICs I could find._

 

I hope it was clear from my post that I was just kidding (mostly)!

 I'm actually considering recabling my K701s because I can't stand how the flimsy stock cable gets tangled up with everything around my desk. (Of course I guess it would be cheaper just to put some techflex on it.)

 --Chris


----------



## nautikal

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kees* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do you think anybody would hear the difference?

 I do. If (and only if) I hear the difference. Proof or no proof, I couldn't care less about proof. 
 And if I find the difference I hear worth the price.

 Why would that happen?
 Don't you think I would get back at you when I don't experience a 20% better acceleration?_

 


 All I can say is placebo effect. There won't be any differences, but you will think you hear them or that the car goes faster because that's what you want. When listening with the tweak, you will focus on all the good parts of the sound and tune out the parts you don't like. Then when listening without the "tweak" you'll do the opposite and focus on the negatives while ignoring the positives. You can't compare two very similar things when you've already made your mind up about which is better. The mind is a powerful thing and it can bend the truth to suit your liking. 

  Quote:


 There is absolutely no reason at all to prove the legitimacy of a tweak.
 It just has to provide customer satisfaction.
 If the product satisfies you: buy it (if the price is right for you too).
 If it doesn't satisfy you (either because you don't experience an improvement or because you think the explanation of the salesman is lacking or because the weather is bad or whatever): don't buy it. 
 

And what if this was the philosophy of drug companies and the FDA? They could sell you medication that's nothing more than sugar and many people would end up feeling better because they want to and because the fake pill gives their mind the strength to feel better. This sugar pill idea is a common example of the placebo effect. These people would end up paying $30 a pill for some sugar. Yet of course this is fine because the drug companies "just have to provide customer satisfaction." It doesn't matter that the drug companies would be ripping off every customer. Thankfully the FDA is in place and specific test trials are required for drug approval. People are too easily taken advantage of, and without government intervention in prescription drugs, you can be sure many people would be taken advantage of. Unfortunately in the Hi-Fi world, there is no "government" and cable/tweak companies are allowed to take advantage of people. In many cases, they are just like the drug companies who sell sugar pills - placebos.


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nautikal* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_All I can say is placebo effect. There won't be any differences, but you will think you hear them or that the car goes faster because that's what you want. When listening with the tweak, you will focus on all the good parts of the sound and tune out the parts you don't like. Then when listening without the "tweak" you'll do the opposite and focus on the negatives while ignoring the positives. You can't compare two very similar things when you've already made your mind up about which is better. The mind is a powerful thing and it can bend the truth to suit your liking._

 

Yes, I know.
 So what?

  Quote:


 And what if this was the philosophy of drug companies and the FDA? They could sell you medication that's nothing more than sugar and many people would end up feeling better because they want to and because the fake pill gives their mind the strength to feel better. This sugar pill idea is a common example of the placebo effect. These people would end up paying $30 a pill for some sugar. Yet of course this is fine because the drug companies "just have to provide customer satisfaction." It doesn't matter that the drug companies would be ripping off every customer. 
 

Right.
 If they sell me a pill that cures me, (by whatever means or mechanism be it called placebo or voodoo or whatever) for a price I am willing to pay.
 No problem. 
 Everybody happy. 
  Quote:


 Thankfully the FDA is in place and specific test trials are required for drug approval. People are too easily taken advantage of, and without government intervention in prescription drugs, you can be sure many people would be taken advantage of. Unfortunately in the Hi-Fi world, there is no "government" and cable/tweak companies are allowed to take advantage of people. In many cases, they are just like the drug companies who sell sugar pills - placebos. 
 

I don't get your point.
 I don't feel like I'm taken advantage of when I am a satisfied customer.
 The only instance there can be a problem is when they sell me a (sugar or whatever) pill that DOESN'T work.
 If they can cure me (for the price we agreed on) with a yellow sugar pill and ten gnomes walking around the building on their hands singing dirty songs it's ok with me.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'd like to know why I have to do jack diddly to justify my professionalism to someone who follows me around on an internet discussion board like an angry puppy anonymously tagging insults at the end of my posts._

 

Yeah, take care: I'll stay hot on your heels! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (Just kidding! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)

 Seriously, I think I was going too far -- sorry! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## nautikal

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kees* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, I know.
 So what?


 Right.
 If they sell me a pill that cures me, (by whatever means or mechanism be it called placebo or voodoo or whatever) for a price I am willing to pay.
 No problem. 
 Everybody happy. 

 I don't get your point.
 I don't feel like I'm taken advantage of when I am a satisfied customer.
 The only instance there can be a problem is when they sell me a (sugar or whatever) pill that DOESN'T work.
 If they can cure me (for the price we agreed on) with a yellow sugar pill and ten gnomes walking around the building on their hands singing dirty songs it's ok with me._

 

The difference is in that in both cases (that is with the drug company and this CD cutter) you are probably being lied to. The drug company would claim it uses some new quantum unobtanium that cures you of pain when in reality it's just a placebo effect. Likewise, this company is claiming that by cutting the CD you're somehow making it easier for the CD player to pick up nuances... as if light disruption doesn't affect the CD player's ability to read the data, just the parts of the CD that carry the glorious transparency and clarity. If light disruption were such a big problem as they make it out to be, CDs would skip, crackle, and pop. But no, only the magical nuances are lost, and by spending $500 you can magically restore these nuances. 

 And then they claim that "an edge angle of 36° brings audibly the best results." Is there any data to back this up? Did they actually do any testing with quantitative data to determine that 36° is the best number? Are there any calculations that prove this is the best angle? Or did they just pull that number out of the sky because such a precise number sounds marketable? 

 The best part is when companies like this claim that the sound was improved by at least 20%! Please tell me how you get a quantitative measurement out of something subjective. Is there some sound-o-instrumentizeably-diffusable-megatron that quantitatively measures sound quality? People... it's all marketing, and you're all falling for it. Most of you laugh at those who fall for bose marketing, yet you're the same people who run out and buy $300 power cables because they use the purest copper in all the kingdom with a quantumly manufactured blend of synthetic cottonite and teflon for shielding. And don't forget the power connectors that finally reveal the space and clarity of the recording by using 99.9992% pure Philippine cryogenically frozen rubber that ensure no unobtanium enters the power cord, thereby preventing disruption of the harmonics in the 5th dimension.

 But if you want to spend $500 for a placebo effect, I'm not going to stop you. Just don't go running around proclaiming your CDs each improved by 10% without some proof to back it up.


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nautikal* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The difference is in that in both cases (that is with the drug company and this CD cutter) you are probably being lied to. The drug company would claim it uses some new quantum unobtanium that cures you of pain when in reality it's just a placebo effect. Likewise, this company is claiming that by cutting the CD you're somehow making it easier for the CD player to pick up nuances... as if light disruption doesn't affect the CD player's ability to read the data, just the parts of the CD that carry the glorious transparency and clarity. If light disruption were such a big problem as they make it out to be, CDs would skip, crackle, and pop. But no, only the magical nuances are lost, and by spending $500 you can magically restore these nuances. 

 And then they claim that "an edge angle of 36° brings audibly the best results." Is there any data to back this up? Did they actually do any testing with quantitative data to determine that 36° is the best number? Are there any calculations that prove this is the best angle? Or did they just pull that number out of the sky because such a precise number sounds marketable? 

 The best part is when companies like this claim that the sound was improved by at least 20%! Please tell me how you get a quantitative measurement out of something subjective. Is there some sound-o-instrumentizeably-diffusable-megatron that quantitatively measures sound quality? People... it's all marketing, and you're all falling for it. Most of you laugh at those who fall for bose marketing, yet you're the same people who run out and buy $300 power cables because they use the purest copper in all the kingdom with a quantumly manufactured blend of synthetic cottonite and teflon for shielding. And don't forget the power connectors that finally reveal the space and clarity of the recording by using 99.9992% pure Philippine cryogenically frozen rubber that ensure no unobtanium enters the power cord, thereby preventing disruption of the harmonics in the 5th dimension.

 But if you want to spend $500 for a placebo effect, I'm not going to stop you. Just don't go running around proclaiming your CDs each improved by 10% without some proof to back it up._

 

I don't particularly care to know if I am lied to or not if the product works.....
 I probably wouldn't understand the real explanation, because I am no expert in the field. 
 I will have to trust the person I think is the expert. And it is my choice to trust the expert or not.
 Besides trust there is my personal experience with the product, which in the end is the only thing that matters.

 And I claim the right to go running around telling _I perceive _a gazillion percent increase in SQ after this tweak. 
 Without having to prove anything.
 If anybody else perceives the same change (or not) is totally up to them, I cannot (and won't) judge anybody else's perception or opinion.
 I won't go around telling people the increase in SQ is _a fact_. And I will certainly not try to prove it "scientifically", because I am no expert, and maybe don't even want to be.

 I just want to discuss my experience with other people and among them can be experts too. Some of them real experts and some only self-proclaimed (the latter category usually very persistent in being absolutely RIGHT, with no room for other opinions at all).
 Some people's opinion I trust, some I don't. 
 My call.
 But usually I can appreciate everybodies effort, whether I agree with them or not.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Seriously, I think I was going too far -- sorry! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Apology accepted.

 Thanks
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Of course, not hearing the difference is also plenty strong enough support for not paying any money for the device. You wouldn't be enjoying its benefits after all._

 

Even assuming that a small percentage of listeners have some sort of exceptional hearing ability that allows them to discern differences that others can't... It isn't useful for them to offer recommendations to others to spend money based on their experiences. The recommendation would only be valid to the tiny handful of others with identical exceptional hearing ability.

 The truth is, most obsessive audio tweaks are more obsessive than they are effective. I can see someone meticulously shaving thousands of their CDs with the same compulsion that they use when they wash their hands three times in a row. This is the sort of person that snake oil hifi sales pitch is aimed at. (And no, I'm not saying that all audiophiles suffer from OCD- just that snake oil is targeting the ones that do.)

 I think it's important to keep a sense of scale when it comes to reporting improvements. That's why I'm always offering a hierarchy of improvement from a big potential for improvement to no potential at all... room and speakers first, then amps, then source and lastly cables.

 You can have all the money in the world, and spend it like water on a stereo system, and still not have any better sound than a guy who has more modest means. If you want "night and day" differences, don't buy fancy cables or shave your CDs... move the damn couch from in front of your speakers, put the speakers where they sound good- not where they make convenient end tables, and equalize your response to suit your room acoustics. These are all VERY inexpensive and make a LOT of difference. 

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I guess part of where I get confused is when I see hints of absolutism in some of the posts from this camp (not necessarily from any of you specifically), and as a result start to wonder how much you could possibly be enjoying the music you're listening to._

 

Well, the subject of this particular forum is equipment, not music. So we're going to be discussing the technical side more than the aesthetic side. However, I can assure you that the appreciation of music is one of the main focuses of my life. Even though I'm a mediocre musician myself, music touches every aspect of what I do. (I've blogged on this here, here, and most of all here- check out the video clips. They're pure gold.)

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You can have all the money in the world, and spend it like water on a stereo system, and still not have any better sound than a guy who has more modest means. If you want "night and day" differences, don't buy fancy cables or shave your CDs... move the damn couch from in front of your speakers, put the speakers where they sound good- not where they make convenient end tables, and equalize your response to suit your room acoustics. These are all VERY inexpensive and make a LOT of difference._

 

Couldn't agree more. Reminds me of a high-end audio store in Tampa (see here my original post about it) with some Focal JM Lab speakers (very $$$$), Musical Fidelity high-end electronics (VERY $$$$$$$), fancy speaker cables, and a Rel subwoofer, all in a small and perfectly cubic room (the worst possible for acoustics.) That rig placed there sounded like cr%p; really no match for my modest and 10x - 15x less expensive entry level HT rig (which is, however, carefully calibrated and appropriately placed in my apartment of course.)

 Very inexpensive speaker systems can provide lots of good and highly enjoyable sound just after some speaker placement exploration along some general considerations of room acoustics. Substantial improvements can be obtained by this absolutely free tweaking.


----------



## edstrelow

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nautikal* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Have any of you studied the scientific method or taken statistic courses lately? There is absolutely *NO* evidence that this tweak is legitimate. Someone's opinion is not evidence. Yet half of you can't wait to drop half a grand on it. This is ridiculous._

 

Opinion based on no actual knowldege of what is being discussed is certainly nonsense. That applies to all the debunkers who are shooting their mouths off without having listened to treated discs. This makes no more sense than attempting to critique a headphone which you have not heard. 

 Sadly this forum brings out these kooks and makes it very difficult for people with actual knowledge of equipment to communicate with other who may be interested in such things.

 I am always amazed that people claim you can measure the accuracy of disc playback by various means when all you can do is compare 2 different measurements. This not the same as establishing any absolute level of performance. 

 Thus if for example your perfect measuring system misses 50%, of the data and your sample misses the same 50% then you would have to conclude that you had 100% accuracy in the sample and of course you would be wrong. But I see this fallacy all the time from the "digital is pefect school," and aside from this being junk science it is fundamentally illogical.


----------



## nautikal

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *edstrelow* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Opinion based on no actual knowldege of what is being discussed is certainly nonsense. That applies to all the debunkers who are shooting their mouths off without having listened to treated discs. *This makes no more sense than attempting to critique a headphone which you have not heard. *_

 


 No... because it's common sense that two different headphones are going to sound different. I can't say the same for cutting a CD and rubbing a sharpie all around the edge. 

 My simple stance is this: if you're going to introduce a new, unproven concept, you better include some data to back yourself up if you want to be taken seriously by the majority of people. But I suppose that's not really necessary from a business standpoint since there will always be people willing to throw money at marketing gimmicks.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *edstrelow* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Opinion based on no actual knowldege of what is being discussed is certainly nonsense. That applies to all the debunkers who are shooting their mouths off without having listened to treated discs. This makes no more sense than attempting to critique a headphone which you have not heard._

 

This is like the Pascal's Wager approach for audio enthusiasts. "You can't know 100% for sure if something works unless you hear it, so you might as well throw your money at every little tweak to 'hear for yourself.'"

 This is definitely not the same thing as shooting your mouth off about the difference between two headphones or two speakers you haven't heard or even in many cases two DACs or amplifiers, because with all of these things there are measurable differences and reasonable explanations as to why they sound different. (And to anyone who has heard both the K701 and the HD-650, we know for sure that they indeed sound quite different.)

 In certain other areas, however, I believe one can speak with pretty good authority without having heard/listened to something for oneself. For example, I haven't seen the Marianas Trench but I believe it is there because the data and reports of its existence are plausible. I wouldn't be shooting my mouth off explaining to someone less informed what the Marianas Trench is, and how it was probably created.

 Likewise, I wouldn't buy a plane ticket to fly all the way to Hungary because someone there claims to own a Unicorn -- the existence of Unicorns is not plausible. Neither is the audible difference between two properly designed transports. So it is not just shooting off one's mouth to explain why Unicorns are not plausible to someone who is thinking about buying that plane ticket to Hungary, despite not having gone to Hungary to verify the claim myself.

 --Chris


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is like the Pascal's Wager approach for audio enthusiasts. "You can't know 100% for sure if something works unless you hear it, so you might as well throw your money at every little tweak to 'hear for yourself.'"

 This is definitely not the same thing as shooting your mouth off about the difference between two headphones or two speakers you haven't heard or even in many cases two DACs or amplifiers, because with all of these things there are measurable differences and reasonable explanations as to why they sound different. (And to anyone who has heard both the K701 and the HD-650, we know for sure that they indeed sound quite different.)

 In certain other areas, however, I believe one can speak with pretty good authority without having heard/listened to something for oneself. For example, I haven't seen the Marianas Trench but I believe it is there because the data and reports of its existence are plausible. I wouldn't be shooting my mouth off explaining to someone less informed what the Marianas Trench is, and how it was probably created.

 Likewise, I wouldn't buy a plane ticket to fly all the way to Hungary because someone there claims to own a Unicorn -- the existence of Unicorns is not plausible. Neither is the audible difference between two properly designed transports. So it is not just shooting off one's mouth to explain why Unicorns are not plausible to someone who is thinking about buying that plane ticket to Hungary, despite not having gone to Hungary to verify the claim myself.

 --Chris_

 

so let's talk belief systems and knowledge:

 Do you know that Alberta peaches grow in Phoenix Arizona?


----------



## edstrelow

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nautikal* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No... because it's common sense that two different headphones are going to sound different. I can't say the same for cutting a CD and rubbing a sharpie all around the edge. 

 ._

 

This is a good way to win an argument - just beg the question. Why is it common sense that 2 headphones will sound different? 

 The machine in question is a lathe. It trims the edges to make the cd more nearly round. A disc with some degree of eccentricity wobbles. This is easily shown with a portable cd player, with many discs you can feel the vibrations through the machine as they are being played, rather like the effect of an untrue or off balance tire on a car. 

 It seems common sensical to me that a disc with enough wobble to give a perceptible vibration, will pass that wobble and vibration on to the player, and may not sound as good as one without this problem. It is common sense that this wobble will impact on the other moving parts of the player. As well, less obviously, it may cause microphonics on electronic components. People put footers and dampers on equipment to stop vibrations of this sort. And I can report that when I put the cut disc back on a player, it doesn't vibrate as much, or at all. 

 There may be other explanations as to why truing a disc may help sound but the above-mentioned are more than enough to convince me that this tweak is not in the same category as magic foil, sonic beads and the like.

 As far as the bevelling, I cannot say if this adds anything or not to the performance of the disc. I can't defeat this aspect of the lathe. For all I know, the makers couldn't get a blade to cut simply up and down and followed the time-honored engineering principle of claiming that a quirk or oddity in a design, that you can't easily fix, is actually a "feature" with audible benefits.

 As regards marking the edge with black, I think the makers of this machine are stacking the deck in their favor by using the black marker trick. There are lots of people who don't use this machine who think treating the edges helps. Even the disc polish kit sold with Auric Illuminator comes with a black pen to mark the edges. 

 My biggest beef with some of the commentary here is that it is based on no experience with the item in question. Thus it has nothing to add to the discussion anymore than someone who disputes another person's claim about the quality of a headphone without hearing it. They are just engaging in intellectual masturbation.

 Sure this system is expensive. I personally think it is overpriced, but in terms of sonic improvements it is worth it, to me at least. However many other disc tweaks cost next to nothing to implement. Take a cd, sand the edges and/or paint it black and report whether or not you hear any difference. That's the type of report which would be meaningful in a tweak forum. 

 In the meantime, I am having a lot of fun listening to good sound and hearing new things in old music.


----------



## DrBenway

The return of green magic marker.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *edstrelow* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Take a cd, sand the edges and/or paint it black..._

 

I've just used this long forgotten trick again. And to my ears it seems to work: sharper sonic images, higher contrasts, less digital glare. Still a rather subtle effect, but maybe worth the effort. -- I think the same effect (= preventing light scatter) is the main function of the Audio Desk System -- according to the manufacturer claims. And possibly it brings it to a higher level, which would make it worth the money despite being overpriced. I will report my findings as soon as some of my CDs are treated by _Anders'_ machine and sent back.

  Quote:


 _...and report whether or not you hear any difference. That's the type of report which would be meaningful in a tweak forum._ 
 

So true! Purely ideologic statements are boring.
.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *edstrelow* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This tweak is not in the same category as magic foil, sonic beads and the like._

 

Might not be, but for that to be true, at least three things would need to be shown, and actually these ones don't involve any human hearing test:

 1) To what degree are typical CDs found to be off perfect roundness/concentrics.

 2) The degree of improvement in perfect roundness/concentrics that the tweak allegedly causes over number #1

 3) Whether those alleged improvements introduced in #2 reduce (at to what degree?) the bit error and/or jitter measurements and/or at least let's say vibration measurements of the CD player.


 Have any of these 3 points been measured and reported anywhere?


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Might not be, but for that to be true, at least three things would need to be shown..._

 

I think you're a bit too demanding here. Actually it suffices to know that the moving mass is reduced where it counts the most for centering the masses and reducing wobble: this will most likely have a beneficial effect in any event -- for the physical behavior in first place, still not necessarily in the pretended sense. But that alone is evidence enough to make it a more serious tweak than Rainbow Foil and the like.
.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *edstrelow* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It seems *common sensical* to me that a disc with enough wobble to give a perceptible vibration, will pass that wobble and vibration on to the player, and may not sound as good as one without this problem. It is *common sense* that this wobble will impact on the other moving parts..._

 

That's really the root of the problem here. People continue to apply "common sense" solutions from analog systems and turntables to the digital realm where "common sense" just becomes irrational belief.

 You can literally place a vibrating device on top of a CD player and as long as there is a good enough buffer somewhere along the line, you are not going to in any way affect the data being fed to the DAC. You could then literally shake your DAC and it would have no effect on the signal being fed to the amplifier.

 Electrons don't generally get upset by motion as easily as mechanical devices do. If they did, you'd have a hard time operating a computer (or an iPod or your cell phone) in a moving vehicle.

 --Chris


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But that alone is evidence enough to make it a more serious tweak than Rainbow Foil and the like.
._

 

I strongly disagree. It isn't evidence enough to make it any more serious if it isn't *evidence*. Reasoned speculation is not evidence. 

 Even allowing that lack of perfect roundness and concentrics would cause any perceived audible difference (which would be debatable on its own within certain tolerance levels), it is very likely that most CDs come pretty well concentric and round in the first place; so much so that the alleged modification in roundness introduced by this device might just leave the CDs within the same tolerance levels as they come from manufacturing. That is precisely why the numbers should be considered, to bring the device beyond the level of simple speculation of the rainbow foil with respect to what it claims to do.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've just used this long forgotten trick again. And to my ears it seems to work: sharper sonic images, higher contrasts, less digital glare._

 

Are you just tossing around random words?


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are you just tossing around random words?_

 

No. These are exactly my subjective sonic impressions. You don't like them?
.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I strongly disagree._

 

You even _strongly_ disagree! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Quote:


 _It isn't evidence enough to make it any more serious if it isn't *evidence*. Reasoned speculation is not evidence._ 
 

However you call it: Vibration reduction is a highly likely scenario (independent of the audible effect it may have), which is much more evidence than everyting you can find on Rainbow foil. -- You still disagree?
.


----------



## nautikal

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Have any of these 3 points been measured and reported anywhere?_

 

Nope. Apparently all you need to sell an eccentric product is speculation, a doctor, and some random numbers.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_However you call it: Vibration reduction is a highly likely scenario (independent of the audible effect it may have)_

 

I disagree, I really don't believe that vibration reduction is highly likely. Precisely because I think most CDs come pretty well made already, well round and concentric.

 The company making the device should show (verifiable) numbers indicating what the variance and distribution are about those construction metrics in standard CDs, and how much better the device leaves those metrics in the CD after the treatment. If they haven't done that, (provide evidence instead of simply words,) then they are speculating as wildly as the rainbow foil which respect to what each device does respectively.

 Then there is of course the issue of whether whatever changes in those construction metrics they can achieve does really reduce vibration and to what extent, and if it does have any measurable effect on CD playback. But first things first.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nautikal* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nope. Apparently all you need to sell an eccentric product is speculation, a doctor, and some random numbers._

 

You forgot audition -- apparently of inferior importance for some people. But indeed I don't need numbers for that.
.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I disagree, I really don't believe that vibration reduction is highly likely. Precisely because I think most CDs come pretty well made already, well round and concentric._

 

I disagree on my part. During ripping with EAC, every CD makes an individual noise, obviously depending on its vibration behavior. Some are really loud.


  Quote:


 _Then there is of course the issue of whether whatever changes in those parameters they can achieve does really reduce vibration...._ 
 

Reducing mass on the circumference will automatically reduce vibration in any case -- as stated earlier --, that's not hard to imagine. 


  Quote:


 _...and does have any measurable effect on CD playback._ 
 

That's indeed still open to debate and a case for listening tests -- if possible without any bias. (Edit: I see you wrote «measurable», not «audible»... which is of greater interest for me.)
.


----------



## nautikal

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You forgot audition -- apparently of inferior importance for some people. *But indeed I don't need numbers for that*.
._

 

You need the placebo effect though.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Reducing mass on the circumference will automatically reduce vibration in any case_

 

Not necessarily. You can reduce mass in the circumference and produce a non concentric CD which has higher vibration than the original, even if with slightly less mass in the border. That's why the numbers matter. Is this device capable of modifying the CD so that it really ends up more concentric and round than the originals, always? Under what tolerance levels does it accuracy fall?

 It would be interesting if the device actually checked for the original roundness and concentricity and wobbleness of the CD, and measured how it did and showed those numbers, and in some cases suggested that the trimming wasn't required. Interestingly, this isn't done at all.

 Tire alignment in a car starts with first checking whether the alignment is required, isn't it?


----------



## nautikal

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Reducing mass on the circumference will automatically reduce vibration in any case -- as stated earlier --, that's not hard to imagine. _

 

That's not true. By reducing the amount of mass around the circumference, you lower the moment of inertia of the object. Moment of Inertia, I = ΣMR², or the sum of the every point mass times its distance squared from the center of the object. By concentrating the mass more towards the center of the disc, you lower its inertia. This means it takes less force and energy to to cause rotation or wobble. If this is hard to imagine, think about when you hold your arms out when trying to balance. You raise your moment of inertia so a small, unbalanced force is less likely to cause you to fall.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nautikal* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's not true. By reducing the amount of mass around the circumference, you lower the moment of inertia of the object. Moment of Inertia, I = ΣMR², or the sum of the every point mass times its distance squared from the center of the object. By concentrating the mass more towards the center of the disc, you lower its inertia. This means it takes less force and energy to to cause rotation or wobble. If this is hard to imagine, think about when you hold your arms out when trying to balance. You raise your moment of inertia so a small, unbalanced force is less likely to cause you to fall._

 

You seem to mix up vibration with wow and flutter. Reducing the mass on the outside border of a CD will most likely reduce its proneness to vibration, though.
.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You seem to mix up vibration with wow and flutter. Reducing the mass on the outside border of a CD will most likely reduce its proneness to vibration, though.
._

 

This is a perfect example of bringing turntable terminology into an area where it has no application. Wow/Flutter/Vibration/whatever you want to call it doesn't change the fact that we can test with 100% validity whether or not the finite set of data being read from the CD (and passed to the DAC) is indeed the exact same finite set of data we want read from the CD.

 --Chris


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not necessarily._

 

Yes, but there will be very few exceptions, if there are any at all. I'm not interested in debating the need for numbers and the absolute evidence of the pretended vibration reduction. It's just funny how you can equate a logical scenario like this with rainbow foil with no imaginable physical effect.
.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is a perfect example of bringing turntable terminology into an area where it has no application._

 

No, I'm not doing that. You must mix me up with somebody else. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Moreover you forget jitter -- but that wasn't my concern.
.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's just funny how you can equate a logical scenario like this with rainbow foil with no imaginable physical effect._

 

There is a difference in how outrageous the claims from each company can be with respect to what their devices can do. Yet, lack of evidence is lack of evidence. They are in the exact same bag as far as that goes.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They are in the exact same bag as far as that goes._

 

That's an extremely subjective and (purposely) biased rating, if you ask me. So why am I not interested in trying Rainbow Foil?
.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's an extremely subjective and (puposely) biased rating, if you ask me._

 

Well I didn't ask you 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But it isn't biased at all. It's simply that neither one has provided evidence supporting their claims. There is no bias or subjectivity in assessing that.


----------



## nautikal

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You seem to mix up vibration with wow and flutter. Reducing the mass on the outside border of a CD will most likely reduce its proneness to vibration, though.
._

 

The vibration is caused by high frequency wobble. Are you going to back up your statement with logic and scientific principles, or are you just going to say the equivalent of "reducing the mass on the outer portion of the disc will reduce vibration because you reduce the mass on the outer portion of the disc?"


----------



## monolith

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nautikal* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The vibration is caused by high frequency wobble. Are you going to back up your statement with logic and scientific principles, or are you just going to say the equivalent of "reducing the mass on the outer portion of the disc will reduce vibration because you reduce the mass on the outer portion of the disc?"_

 

His point was that you're saying it might cause vibration without saying anything about what that vibration does, if anything. Wow and flutter are real effects in the analogue world. People seem to be demonising CD vibration without actually qualifying whether CD vibration matters at all when it comes to reading accuracy.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nautikal* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The vibration is caused by high frequency wobble. Are you going to back up your statement with logic and scientific principles, or are you just going to say the equivalent of "reducing the mass on the outer portion of the disc will reduce vibration because you reduce the mass on the outer portion of the disc?"_

 

By reducing the amount of mass around the circumference, you lower the moment of inertia of the outer section and (thus) reduce the disk's damping requirement. There's less mass available to excite wobble (= vibration). It's not the inner section of the disk which excites vibration (by inertia and centrifugal force), but the outer section, which is much more affected by centrifugal force.
.


----------



## Wmcmanus

(((Yawn))) What was I going to say again? Oh ya, that I've compared trimmed and non trimmed CDs and that the trimmed... oh never mind!


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well I didn't ask you 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 But it isn't biased at all. It's simply that neither one has provided evidence supporting their claims. There is no bias or subjectivity in assessing that._

 

So it is unbiased and objective? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Your subjectivity and bias lies in the criteria you apply for your categorisation. I'm not buying every marketing and pseudo-science claims as well, but I'm open to concepts which have some likeliness to work, the more so if they get positive reviews from people whom I trust. BTW, I'm not even sure that the vibration scenario applies here -- I rather bet on the scatter-light scenario. 
.


----------



## nautikal

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_By reducing the amount of mass around the circumference, you lower the moment of inertia of the outer section and (thus) reduce the disk's damping requirement. There's less mass available to excite wobble (= vibration). It's not the inner section of the disk which excites vibration (by inertia and centrifugal force), but the outer section, which is much more affected by centrifugal force.
._

 

Lowering the inertia of the outside of the disk means it takes less force to cause wobbling, which you want to prevent. 

 And there's no such thing as centrifugal force, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about.


----------



## Uncle Erik

Wouldn't the results of trimming vary between each and every different transport?

 And I'm not sure why this can't be settled by ripping a disc before trimming then ripping it again after. Have the computer compare the ones and zeros between the two.


----------



## edstrelow

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I disagree, I really don't believe that vibration reduction is highly likely. Precisely because I think most CDs come pretty well made already, well round and concentric.

 The company making the device should show (verifiable) numbers indicating what the variance and distribution are about those construction metrics in standard CDs, and how much better the device leaves those metrics in the CD after the treatment. If they haven't done that, (provide evidence instead of simply words,) then they are speculating as wildly as the rainbow foil which respect to what each device does respectively.

 Then there is of course the issue of whether whatever changes in those construction metrics they can achieve does really reduce vibration and to what extent, and if it does have any measurable effect on CD playback. But first things first._

 

This a poor argument. 

 You can check the vibration yourself on any disc with a portable cd player. It is either perceptible or not. That's good enough for me and the trimming caused by this machine cuts down the vibration in an obvious and detectable manner. Some others hear report that they can hear their discs rattling around in their players, expecially at high speeds.

 If you can't trust your own judgement on an issue like this based on hearing or feeling vibration then you might as well forget about being an audiophile since the subtleties of what makes good sound will surely elude you.


----------



## rsaavedra

Once again, neither company has provided evidence supporting their claims. That's all that matters, and that's all I'm assessing. They are in the same speculative status about their claims. If someone thinks there is subjectivity in that assessment, that is irrelevant. It won't change anything one bit. Such opinion won't provide any evidence in favor of any product, so it won't change the status of either company with respect to their unsupported claims.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *edstrelow* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This a poor argument._

 

For a second I thought you had used that sentence as an introduction to the rest of your post


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *edstrelow* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you can't trust your own judgement on an issue like this based on hearing or feeling vibration then you might as well forget about being an audiophile since the subtleties of what makes good sound will surely elude you._

 

I don't have to forget about being something that I am not. What is your definition of audiophile?


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nautikal* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Lowering the inertia of the outside of the disk means it takes less force to cause wobbling, which you want to prevent._

 

It is the mass/inertia which causes wobbling, together with centrifugal force.

  Quote:


 _And there's no such thing as centrifugal force, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about._ 
 

No such thing as centrifugal force? My native tongue is German, and every dictionary available sais it's the right translation. Google.
.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *edstrelow* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you can't trust your own judgement on an issue like this based on hearing or feeling vibration then you might as well forget about being an audiophile since the subtleties of what makes good sound will surely elude you._

 

This made me chuckle.

 Likewise, I think you might as well forget about being an audio enthusiast if you don't take the time to understand why things that sound good sound that way, and what realistic things can be done to improve on that sound.

 You should never trust your own senses independent of your intellect. That's how magicians and snake-oil salesmen (not just in the audio industry) make their money.

 This reminds me of the superstitious rejection by housewives (and househusbands?) all over the world of Compact Florescent Lighting. So many homeowners claim that CFL lighting doesn't look right, even though the measurements and good science show that it should. Yet put them in a blind test and they can't tell the difference (or choose CFL as the better source of light!). This Popular Mechanics piece is just one example of many that I've read.

 Also reminds me of why those various body part enlargement companies still have enough money in the bank to buy late night TV infomercials... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 --Chris


----------



## nautikal

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It is the mass/inertia which causes wobbling, together with centrifugal force.

 No such thing as centrifugal force? My native tongue is German, and every dictionary available sais it's the right translation. Google.
._

 

Centrifugal in Latin means "center fleeing." This would imply a force that pushes an object away from a circular path. The real force you are talking about is centripetal force, which means "center seeking" in Latin. This implies a force that causes an object to take a circular path. "Centrifugal force" is merely the absence of centripetal force. See here. 

 Do you know what inertia means? Inertia is the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force. Saying inertia causes movement is like saying a stabilizer on a ship causes listing.


----------



## stevenkelby

Inertia does cause movement.

 If a disc is spinning due to a motor spinning it, then the motor is disconnected, the disc will continue spinning (moving) for a time. Why? Due to it's inertia.

 The cause of the movement after the motor is disconnected is inertia. The inertia of the disc.


----------



## nautikal

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Inertia does cause movement.

 If a disc is spinning due to a motor spinning it, then the motor is disconnected, the disc will continue spinning (moving) for a time. Why? Due to it's inertia.

 The cause of the movement after the motor is disconnected is inertia. The inertia of the disc._

 

Right. But technically it's not causing the movement... it's just preventing the object from stopping. Inertia isn't going to cause anything to begin wobbling, spinning, etc, and that's really what I meant.


----------



## Mher6

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nautikal* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Right. But technically it's not causing the movement... it's just preventing the object from stopping. Inertia isn't going to cause anything to begin wobbling, spinning, etc, and that's really what I meant._

 

The disc will naturally wobble; it's impossible for the disc to spin perfectly horizontally unless you have a force "pulling" down on the disc. Centripetal force does NOT cause the disc to wobble. I only read a few posts, so if I'm talking about something that isn't related to what you guys are arguing about, just ignore this comment.


----------



## nautikal

Okay I thought about this some more and I'm almost positive that *thinning the outer edge of the disc will actually increase wobble and vibrations* due to the decrease in inertia. Try balancing a pool cue with the large end on top and then with the small end on top. With the large end on top, it is much easier due to the larger inertia. 

 So in summary, we have yet to find any scientific basis for the merits of this "tweak". The only way this would make sense is if there are some parts of the disc that are *significantly* thicker than others. I find this very doubtful as the difference would have to be significant to cause vibrations, and such differences would be easily observable. Not only that, but I doubt the factory would produce a CD so inconsistent .


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nautikal* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So in summary, we have yet to find any scientific basis for the merits of this "tweak"._

 

We didn't even need to go down the inertia/no inertia, centrifugal/centripetal path to get there. A good transport even by early 1990s standards would make about one C2 error per disc. You'd be lucky to hear this one little blip of an error even if the C2 correction algorithm (averaging the values on either side of the error) didn't get it right.

 There simply isn't any reason to believe that a finite set of data going into a DAC will be any different with or without this tweak. Unless you believe finite sets carry with them some sort of metaphysical superdata, and that DACs somehow (and unbeknownst to the engineers who build DACs) do something with this metaphysical data to place it in the analog signal, then the tweak makes no sense whatsoever.

 There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the binary number system and how electronics carry digital signals behind this tweak, and I think it carries over from the analog world where slight variations in rotation would indeed have an effect on sound. Many of the tweaks around today involving vibration/wobble isolation (there are people who swear on their dead mothers that putting your computer desk on pads will increase SQ) blossomed from the analog days in the hands of dishonest salespeople.

 --Chris


----------



## Mher6

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nautikal* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Okay I thought about this some more and I'm almost positive that *thinning the outer edge of the disc will actually increase wobble and vibrations* due to the decrease in inertia. Try balancing a pool cue with the large end on top and then with the small end on top. With the large end on top, it is much easier due to the larger inertia. 

 So in summary, we have yet to find any scientific basis for the merits of this "tweak". The only way this would make sense is if there are some parts of the disc that are *significantly* thicker than others. I find this very doubtful as the difference would have to be significant to cause vibrations, and such differences would be easily observable. Not only that, but I doubt the factory would produce a CD so inconsistent ._

 

Inertia doesn't change in different parts of the object. The WHOLE object simply has inertia, the top of the cue and the bottom don't "have" different inertias. The reason you can't balance the cue with the large end on top is because the cue has an "unbalanced" center of mass.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nautikal* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Centrifugal in Latin means "center fleeing." This would imply a force that pushes an object away from a circular path. The real force you are talking about is centripetal force, which means "center seeking" in Latin. This implies a force that causes an object to take a circular path. "Centrifugal force" is merely the absence of centripetal force. See here. 

 Do you know what inertia means? Inertia is the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force. Saying inertia causes movement is like saying a stabilizer on a ship causes listing._

 

I know what inertia means. And what I meant was indeed centrifugual force, not centripetal force. I have a hard time imagining how you imagine the wobble scenario and what you consider the cause and the exciting moment of it. In fact inertia is the cause for centrifugual force, which, together with mass (predominantly the one on the circumference of the disk), causes the wobble -- due to irregularities in mass dispersion.
.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nautikal* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Okay I thought about this some more and I'm almost positive that *thinning the outer edge of the disc will actually increase wobble and vibrations* due to the decrease in inertia._

 

Think about it one more time. Centrifugal force is the dominating force in a spinning object -- and it entirely depends on mass.
.


----------



## Kees

I think it is easy:
 Think flywheel: the more mass the more stable it rotates.


----------



## stevenkelby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kees* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think it is easy:
 Think flywheel: the more mass the more stable it rotates._

 

The more the mass, the more force any imbalances will have.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kees* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think it is easy:
 Think flywheel: the more mass the more stable it rotates._

 

Yes: if the mass is centered. If not, removing mass from the outside will bring the center of gravity closer to the center of rotation (resulting in lower wobble). In the ideal case bevelling with a machine (think lathe) will even create perfect centering.

 BTW, the flywheel effect of heavy turntables addresses wow and flutter, not wobble.
.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The more the mass, the more force any imbalances will have._

 

Exactly, thanks!
.


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes: if the mass is centered. If not, removing mass from the outside will bring the center of gravity closer to the center of rotation (resulting in lower wobble). In the ideal case bevelling with a machine (think lathe) will even create perfect centering.

 BTW, the flywheel effect of heavy turntables addresses wow and flutter, not wobble.
._

 

Centering is most important, I agree, but more mass will certainly make it more difficult to make it wobble.
 The wobble effect you are talking about irt turntables is related to the wobbling (unevenness) of the record, not the platter.
 It will also be the vertical distribution of mass (even thickness on the whole surface) that will be most important for this wobbling effect.
 That is if I understand correctly: wobbling is an uncontrolled movement in the _vertical_ plane.


----------



## monolith

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Think about it one more time. Centrifugal force is the dominating force in a spinning object -- and it entirely depends on mass.
._

 

No, it really isn't. Centrifugal force doesn't exist. Centripetal force exists. Centrifugal force is a "fictitious force" introduced to make Newton's second law work in the rotating (ie. non-Newtonian) reference frame. Centripital is the dominant (ie. only) force in a rotating object (obviously ignoring gravity, and other things acting in different directions).


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *monolith* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, it really isn't. Centrifugal force doesn't exist. Centripetal force exists. Centrifugal force is a "fictitious force" introduced to make Newton's second law work in the rotating (ie. non-Newtonian) reference frame. Centripital is the dominant (ie. only) force in a rotating object (obviously ignoring gravity, and other things acting in different directions)._

 

That's pure semantics, and we all know how productive it is to debate semantics. In the everyday world centrifugal force does exist, that's why centrifugues work and the rotating CD develops forces causing it to wobble if not centered. I know and have stated that centrifugal force is actually caused by inertia (and a centripetal force to make the object spin around a center at all) -- which is apperently how modern physics define it (as it's not a separate physical force). Interestingly in the German version of Wikipedia centrifugal force is still an accepted term.
.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kees* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The wobble effect you are talking about irt turntables is related to the wobbling (unevenness) of the record, not the platter._

 

I haven't talked about wobble in turntables.
.


----------



## nautikal

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mher6* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Inertia doesn't change in different parts of the object. The WHOLE object simply has inertia, the top of the cue and the bottom don't "have" different inertias. The reason you can't balance the cue with the large end on top is because the cue has an "unbalanced" center of mass._

 

Yes I know. Changing the distribution so the disc is more like a thin hoop will increase the inertia constant to be between 1/2 and 1. Hence there will be more inertia. And you can balance the cue with the large end on top... don't know what you're talking about.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's pure semantics, and we all know how productive it is to debate semantics. In the everyday world centrifugal force does exist, that's why centrifugues work and the rotating CD develops forces causing it to wobble if not centered. I know and have stated that centrifugal force is actually caused by inertia (and a centripetal force to make the object spin around a center at all) -- which is apperently how modern physics define it (as it's not a separate physical force). Interestingly in the German version of Wikipedia centrifugal force is still an accepted term.
._

 

No. There is no such thing as centrifugal force. To speak of one would imply a non-inertial frame of reference and makes it confusing for others to follow what you're saying.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nautikal* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No. There is no such thing as centrifugal force. To speak of one would imply a non-inertial frame of reference and makes it confusing for others to follow what you're saying._

 

Semantics again. So sad! You don't seem to be interested in the topic.

 I really don't want to make any premature statements about the pretended function of the Audio Desk System -- it isn't even clear if vibration reduction is the beneficial effect or rather reduced scatter light. My only concern was the categorization of this device as similarly unlikely to work as tweaks such as Rainbow Foil, which is clearly not adequate: it has the potential to work. There are the reported experiences in terms of heard and felt vibrations with rotating CDs and the reduction of them after treatment (both consequently ignored and no interest to reproduce the simple tests) as well as the positive listening reports, and there are the persistent decryings and diabolisations of an unknown product as well as the programmed confusion... 

 I'm retiring from this debate, but will report my listening impressions with the trimmed CDs later (for the people interested in such real-world things).
.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm refusing from this debate, but will report my listening impressions with the trimmed CDs later (for the people interested in such real-world things)._

 

Will you admit the possibility of expectancy bias and do the listening tests blind?

 --Chris


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Will you admit the possibility of expectancy bias and do the listening tests blind?_

 

I think I can handle expectancy bias, which I admit is possible and will be there to some degree, but I'll do my comparison like I do all my auditions: under real-world conditions (= sighted), relaxed and critical at the same time. That's the best precondition I can think of and will produce real-world results.
.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's the best precondition I can think of and will produce real-world results._

 

I love that our hobby is the only hobby or discipline I know of where a rigorous methodology is not compatible with "real world."

 It brings to my mind the image of a group of geeks benchmarking the latest speed demon computer by counting off in their heads how long it takes to complete a task in Photoshop, because that is somehow "more natural." Sure, the task may be real-world, but they are measuring it with an imaginary yardstick.

 It's very quaint and endearing -- has a bit of a 16th century mystique about it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 --Chris


----------



## edstrelow

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Will you admit the possibility of expectancy bias and do the listening tests blind?

 --Chris_

 

Give it a rest buddy, read the intro comments about not raising double blind testing issues. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Semantics again. So sad! You don't seem to be interested in the topic.

 I really don't want to make any premature statements about the pretended function of the Audio Desk System -- it isn't even clear if vibration reduction is the beneficial effect or rather reduced scatter light. My only concern was the categorization of this device as similarly unlikely to work as tweaks such as Rainbow Foil, which is clearly not adequate: it has the potential to work. There are the reported experiences in terms of heard and felt vibrations with rotating CDs and the reduction of them after treatment (both consequently ignored and no interest to reproduce the simple tests) as well as the positive listening reports, and there are the persistent decryings and diabolisations of an unknown product as well as the programmed confusion... 

 I'm retiring from this debate, but will report my listening impressions with the trimmed CDs later (for the people interested in such real-world things).
._

 

I look forward to comments from someone with some actual experience so that hter can be meaningful dialogue. 

 Of course not everyone likes the same things in sound. I hang out a lot in the Stax headphone thread and see some marked differences in the evaluation of even their most expensive systems, eg, the O2, where comments range from "the best in the world," " second best," "third best," to "I sold mine because I couldn't stand them."


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *edstrelow* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Give it a rest buddy, read the intro comments about not raising double blind testing issues._

 

Funny, I don't see the words "Moderator" under your name. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Contribute to the dialogue, or stay out, but don't play tattle-tale, please. This isn't kindergarten.

 --Chris


----------



## bigshot

It seems to me when someone says, "I believe expectancy bias is possible, but I can handle it" it's pretty clear that they either don't believe in expectancy bias or they don't understand it.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## brainsalad

Go getem hempcamp. I with you all the way brother.


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I love that our hobby is the only hobby or discipline I know of where a rigorous methodology is not compatible with "real world."

 It brings to my mind the image of a group of geeks benchmarking the latest speed demon computer by counting off in their heads how long it takes to complete a task in Photoshop, because that is somehow "more natural." Sure, the task may be real-world, but they are measuring it with an imaginary yardstick.

 It's very quaint and endearing -- has a bit of a 16th century mystique about it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 --Chris_

 

Do you actually own a hat with a propellor on the top?


 I keeed, I keeeed!!!


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do you actually own a hat with a propellor on the top?


 I keeed, I keeeed!!!_

 

You can have mine, if you're willing to trade it for your tin foil hat.


----------



## meat01

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Funny, I don't see the words "Moderator" under your name. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Contribute to the dialogue, or stay out, but don't play tattle-tale, please. This isn't kindergarten.

 --Chris_

 

Chris, I find it better to moderate ourselves or each other here, so we don't have to have heavy moderation . I have called quite a few people out on ad hominem attacks or tried to get a thread back on topic, rather than just report posts to moderators. 

 I realize that skeptics are at a disadvantage that can't prove their side of the debate and most don't want to listen to science, so everyone is forced to believe every tweek, because they heard it with their ears.


----------



## bigshot

Actually, it isn't a disadvantage. We aren't forbidden to discuss the conclusions from published scientific tests. We're just asked not to discuss DBT methodology. It's the folks who argue endlessly about the "proper" way to conduct a DBT and offer convoluted hoops for tests to jump through to satisfy them that are the problem, not the skeptics.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## JaZZ

*Impressions*

 As promised, here's my review of some Audio Desk treated CDs -- more precisely CD-Rs: I didn't want to buy the reference CDs a second time, so CD-R copies were the way to go. The more so as the essence of my collection consists of sound-edited CD-R duplicates with a customized crossfeed as main (and in most cases only) editing purpose. This particularly in view of my electrostatic system; but even with my dynamic system I prefer my own crossfeed implementation to that of the Opera. 

 My system can be seen in my signature. The most used headphones were my two electrostats, but I also used the K 701 and the HD 650 to verify the results on the dynamic setup.

 It was Head-Fier _Anders_ who generously offered to treat some of my CDs with his Audio Desk system. So I sent six CD-Rs to him. They came back with bevelled edges, additionally painted black (although hard to see on the five Fuji Photo discs which are black by nature). 

 The first album I auditioned and compared was Henri Dutilleux's violin concerto (Chandos 9853 -- 4-disc set). As hard as I concentrated, I couldn't identify any sonic difference between treated and untreated disc. Sometimes I thought the treated disc had a bit less extension to both extremes, especially at the lower end, but I absolutely couldn't decide if the difference was real or imagined.

 The next one was Kamran Ince's orchestral works (symphonies No.3 and 4, Domes -- Naxos 8.557588). Exactly the same scenario as above: no clear difference.

 The third test sample was Public Image Limited's «Compact Disc». Now, after a few runs, there was a characteristic difference: less bass power and less treble sparkle with the treated disk -- making me prefer the untreated copy which seemed to have higher energy and impact. There was also more flow to the music, whereas the treated CD showed a slight dryness, but also higher accuracy. There was one track, «Round», which I enjoyed more from the treated disc: The phase-distorted cymbals on the intro had more atmosphere, the electronic effect was more detailed, and the whole track was somehow more musical, with a warmer, more intimate touch and higher detail. Every other track sounded rounder, livelier and more spectacular from the untreated disc, although I could live with both presentations and their advantages and downsides.

 Since rock recordings seemed to reveal the effect better, the next CD was Radiohead's «In Rainbows». Which threw me back almost to the beginning. It was hard to identify differences again. 

 But the more I listened -- meanwhile during several days, but not more than half an hour per session --, the clearer the effect of the bevelling became. Although the above is still true: The PIL album shows the effect in the most pronounced manner. This may have to do with the fact that the recording is rich on transients (drum beats, cymbals, hi-hat), much more so than the other recordings. The main effect consists of leaner bass and less treble sparkle. I'm not sure if the latter isn't in fact a consequence of the former, however, at times it pays off as increased accuracy and detail sharpness, and this throughout the sonic spectrum. Another effect, which I consider a general disadvantage, is the narrower soundstage. As to the reduced (low-)bass power and treble sparkle: the headphone suffering most from it was the K 701.

 Summary: In my system and to my ears the Audio Desk treated CDs made a noticeable, but not a night-and day difference compared to the «originals». Although the effect covers a wider sonic spectrum than usual cable effects I'm familiar with, I'd rate it as somewhat less pronounced than typical cable characteristics. The positive effects don't clearly outweigh the negatives to my ears, so the Audio Desk system isn't a must-have in my book. Which is actually a good thing (money saved), and at the same time the result is interesting food for thoughts, as the test didn't result in the halfways expected «zero effect» judgement, and the effect is far from being explainable, in contrast to conventional audio phenomena -- at least if you don't belong to those who «know» that it's just imagined anyway. I will further occupy myself with the subject and don't exclude that I'll finally make friends with the bevelled-edges effect. 
.


----------



## fkclo

Jazz,

 Thanks a lot for your observations, and kudos to your willingness to experiment yourself.

 Although I like what I hear with the treated discs, different people can form their own opinions, and it is not necessary your impressions have to matched mine, as long as yours are based on your own experience.

 F. Lo


----------



## Anders

Jazz, thanks for the interesting test. We have both noticed a difference. In my case I have interpreted it as usually positive although it has happened that a few few disks sounded a little sharper and then I suspected that flaws in the system were highlighted rather than the treatment itself, but that is of course an interpretation of my observation. Obviously, system balance is changed and then there is the same problem as when we change a cable or a component, it could become better in some parameters but the system balance can tip over in the wrong direction. It is not unusual that things work differently in different systems and for different listeners. I have no good idea under what conditions the treatment works and not works. System balance is one idea except that the system should have some reasonable degree of resolution before the difference is audible and it was in your test. Finally, 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.

 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. This is speculation.


----------



## Scrith

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). 

 Keep in mind a CD is just media for digital data. Jitter does not come from the CD, it comes from the device reading the CD and sending the data it recovers to another component (either externally via a digital connection, or internally to a DAC chip) if (and only if) the data is being sent in a precisely timed manner.


----------



## 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.


----------

