Ionizers, demagnetizers, coloring the disc, coloring the tray, leveling the transport, isolating the transport, CD Enhancer fluids, all of these things improve ripping. |
Alfe, that's what they all say. Perfect sound forever! |
Mapman wrote,
"I'd have to agree that CD treatments for ripping in particular are mostly BS as well."
Mapman, the view from 40,000 ft. - you have a long way to go. You are the poster child for the Backfire Effect.
Cheers |
Alfe wrote,
"see this link for information about pit structure and also notice the size of a laser spot, so reflectivity is not an issue no need to enhance it with any placebo product."
The (primary) problem is the scattering of the laser light while the data is being read. The laser light is scattered by the pits themselves as well as the clear polycarbonate layer. Both the visible red component of the scattered light as well as the invisible component of the light can be detected by the photodetector as real signal. Therein lies the problem: the detector is a "stupid" device and cannot distinguish between pure reflected light from the physical Lands and the background scattered light. This is why coloring CDs to absorb the visible red AND absorbing invisible scattered light are so profound. Having said that, I can certainly understand how someone can convince himself that he is hearing everything. After all, CDs have always been marketed as Perfect Sound Forever. I'm afraid we are in the process of learning just how imperfect they actually are. |
Alfe. Wrote,
"there is no pit and lands in a CD-R!!!
a CD-R is a blank data spiral with a photosensitive dye.
the write laser changes the color of the dye (dark and clear) and that sit.
and because the dye is photosensitive every time you read the disc you are adding errors."
But we're not talking about CD-Rs, we're talking about CDs. Ripping CDs, to be accurate. Refer to the original post. |
Mapman, the evidence is there, you just dismiss it. You know, the evidence of others' experience with coloring CDs, demagnetizing CDs, ionizing CDs, CD enhancer fluids and so forth. Those who are actually trying these things. All these demands for PROOF, you know, as opposed to EVIDENCE, are a little illogical and if you don't mind my saying so the last resort of a stubborn naysayer who just found out he's run out of ammo. By "ammo" I'm referring to an actual argument, you know, a scientific argument. And evidence to support your argument would be nice. |
Alfe wrote,
"The name for what you are describing"as scattering of laser light" is diffracted order and they are considered on the SalomonReed correction."
Actually the scattered light is not considered by the Reed Solomon codes, which were implemented to deal with fingerprints and certain scratches, the ones in the radial direction. Reed Solomon obviously cannot deal some things, such as scratches in the direction of the physical data spiral.
One can observe that Reed Solomon codes are obviously unable to deal with scattered light by coloring CDs. It's a very convincing experiment. |
Alfe, the Snopes article on greening or using purple on CDs is filled with errors. In fact it's one giant Strawman Argument. Perhaps it was written by a recording engineer or a pro audio dude. lol. Maybe try over at Hydrogen Audio or AudioKarma, see what they say. Lol |
Color the outer edge of the CD PURPLE and the inner edge BLACK prior to ripping. This basic color scheme is guaranteed to improve the sound of the final product. This color scheme also works for standard CDs, DVDs, SACDs and BLU RAY discs. |
While it's possible that some fault with the system is producing some effects. However, the problem with the theory of mysterious intervention is that results of treating CDs by coloring, demagnetizing, reducing static fields, using cleaners and optical enhancers, etc. - including treating them before ripping - are repeatable for systems of different types and different manufactures. One can cling to the bits is bits theory only so long in the face of 100% or more improvement to the sound. There is a red line between the uber skeptics and the experimentalists. |
The same reasons why treated CDs sound better than untreated CDs apply to why ripped files produced by treated CDs sound better than ripped files produced by untreated CDs. This is precisely why I say the bits is bits argument doesn't hold water. Ditto for the argument that ripping treated CDs can't work since perfect bits can be guaranteed. That's actually the same argument used for thirty years to try to dismiss treating CDs in the first place. Reed Solomon codes and laser servo mechanism and all that jazz. |
