For the student in scattered light in CDs, try to recall the double slit experiment.
http://physics.randolphcollege.edu/lab/106_116lab/Laser/CD.htm
http://physics.randolphcollege.edu/lab/106_116lab/Laser/CD.htm
Has to be said
Hi,
i been reading most sites and the little arguments about this and that about making audio in this case be more pleasent ot better to any individual. and have to say upfront that if "you" believe its better to you than it is in fact true to you and you only. we are just reletive respondants to each other and therefore nature and the universe.
many of the subjects that come up as to improving ones audio system tend to go into little details that may or may not have "real" affects on most of us. and also be provable with phsics,math,medical studies etc.many musicians and many humans can distinguish alot of these aspects. and they are ALL quantifiable and measureable very easilly. from 1800 till today FFT and resonance,sound perfiliration has been well adjustable from the totally acoustic pipe organs to the music halls 100s of years ago with out electronic fixes, and all these new snake oil gagets on the market. many are always big commenters here on this site.
Its totally true you can "fix" and sound wave with free rocks,walls,chambers, etc. so go for it at a cost of zero dollars. and adbandon all these marketing hacks.
Ive been well into sound,RF,Radioation, Electron manulipation, Audio,phsics etc all my life and all my relatives aslso . I dont need to justify my opinions yet am dignified by holding 8 international patents,2 doctrets and my dad with similar fields.
one crazy obvious thing no one even bothers to mention is the way off standard of 440hz shifted 8hz the earths standard resonance. while all the 1000s of years 432hz was based on real natural happenings before electronics. dont you all care everything you listen to is 8hz off tune and therefore wrong, but you will bicker about a few microvolts noise from an ocslittating wire with parallell wire hanging off a standoff. itf too funny to me.
yes all digital except one source tunes their DAC math to 435hz to be more correct to Verdi and other great composers.
ive got tuning forks over the audio and above spectrum and tune my panios violins etc to them 432 hz
and need to say again. yes please do everything Analoge
to correct your sound system, its been done in churches,music halls,the great pyrmids, with instruments themselves.
but do not chase the rabbit down the money hole to fix apparent physhoacoustics in your listening area.
ps the spelling and writing is horrid cause ive got a brain injury2 years ago and under go EEG,ehthesographs and neuro studies constantly. where various frequency sweeps are put thru me and studied by the medical and commercial fields.
Im off for now to play my bass thru 50000watts total. and resonate the neighborhood at 8.2 HZ....
i been reading most sites and the little arguments about this and that about making audio in this case be more pleasent ot better to any individual. and have to say upfront that if "you" believe its better to you than it is in fact true to you and you only. we are just reletive respondants to each other and therefore nature and the universe.
many of the subjects that come up as to improving ones audio system tend to go into little details that may or may not have "real" affects on most of us. and also be provable with phsics,math,medical studies etc.many musicians and many humans can distinguish alot of these aspects. and they are ALL quantifiable and measureable very easilly. from 1800 till today FFT and resonance,sound perfiliration has been well adjustable from the totally acoustic pipe organs to the music halls 100s of years ago with out electronic fixes, and all these new snake oil gagets on the market. many are always big commenters here on this site.
Its totally true you can "fix" and sound wave with free rocks,walls,chambers, etc. so go for it at a cost of zero dollars. and adbandon all these marketing hacks.
Ive been well into sound,RF,Radioation, Electron manulipation, Audio,phsics etc all my life and all my relatives aslso . I dont need to justify my opinions yet am dignified by holding 8 international patents,2 doctrets and my dad with similar fields.
one crazy obvious thing no one even bothers to mention is the way off standard of 440hz shifted 8hz the earths standard resonance. while all the 1000s of years 432hz was based on real natural happenings before electronics. dont you all care everything you listen to is 8hz off tune and therefore wrong, but you will bicker about a few microvolts noise from an ocslittating wire with parallell wire hanging off a standoff. itf too funny to me.
yes all digital except one source tunes their DAC math to 435hz to be more correct to Verdi and other great composers.
ive got tuning forks over the audio and above spectrum and tune my panios violins etc to them 432 hz
and need to say again. yes please do everything Analoge
to correct your sound system, its been done in churches,music halls,the great pyrmids, with instruments themselves.
but do not chase the rabbit down the money hole to fix apparent physhoacoustics in your listening area.
ps the spelling and writing is horrid cause ive got a brain injury2 years ago and under go EEG,ehthesographs and neuro studies constantly. where various frequency sweeps are put thru me and studied by the medical and commercial fields.
Im off for now to play my bass thru 50000watts total. and resonate the neighborhood at 8.2 HZ....
232 responses Add your response
| Post removed |
atdavid"No discussion needed. You are publishing false information (noted many times) to shill for your products. Please stop!" It is not for you to limit, restrict, or discourage posters and contributors to this forum from sharing, expressing, or explaining they’re thoughts, observations, or opinions and regardless of you’re opinions or threat. You’re insistence that "no discussion needed" is without basis, justification, or validity in any sense because this is a forum expressly for discussion and if that does not interest you, the remedy is not to silence those seeking to contribute to those issues, topics, and components subject to the conversation. |
atdavid"Obfuscation and irrelevance. That is not a great way to approach an argument." Actually what you are doing here does not really qualify as an "argument," which under the classic definition requires a premise that is then supported with facts and/or logic but what you do is issue pronouncements and proclamations that you demand be accepted at face value or otherwise you demand that other's produce evidence and research for you're benefit and at your direct instruction. So if there is an irrelevant obfuscator hear I think it has been demonstrated clearly just who that is, atdavid! |
Clearthink, don't you have some people with disabilities to insult like you did last time you attempted to debate with me? I see you have nothing to add to this argument, and I have no intention of boring other participants with clear descriptions of all the fallacies in GK's posts, like I and others have done many times, complete with links and references, so I guess we are done here? If you feel like researching my posts w.r.t. gk's fallacies, feel free, but I won't subject other participants to them ... again, like GK subjects participants to his shilling. |
You have already been revealed here to be without solid understanding of the basic facts central to this discussion and we have clearly demonstrated beyond dispute that you’re confusion and misunderstandings originate from those gaps in you’re knowledge base there there is no need to repeat them they are here for all to read, digest, and understand. Most odd is your claim that "no discussion needed" and that you do not understand that the purpose of this forum is for discussion! What do you think the purpose is if not that! |
Its not the greatest example, but the info in the link GK posted above is hardly irrelevant, and far from obfuscating. Its probably just that the whiner is unfamiliar with the concepts. Even so, all that means is it takes longer as you have more to learn. Just not willing to put in the effort. As usual. Basically, what GK is saying and what the article explains in excruciating detail, is the laser light waves reflected and refracted off the CD cancel at certain points. The experiment deals only with direct light and the first reflection. But the concept applies to all the light bouncing around inside the player. GK is either smiling right now, happy to see we're on the same page, or frowning, concerned that I know too much. Whatever. Good one, GK. Anyone puts audiogon's most annoying and most frequently wrong poster who should call it a day in his place I will buy a cold one any time. Oh, one last but very important point. In terms of simple logic the situation goes like this- the person who hears a difference is under no obligation to prove or substantiate it with physical theory. That's one. And two would be, if they do go on to earn bonus points by offering up a proposed physical theory (as GK has done) its sufficient to show that it COULD possibly be an explanation. That's just the way it goes. This, GK has done. The other one, not so much. |
It is irrelevant. He mentions the dual slit experiment which is specific to wave particle duality which does not apply with a simple optical detector. He also made a post to a CD optical system which really shows nothing, as it neither discusses nor quantifies the spectrum of visible light, which is what he raises as an "issue" (which an IR laser produces almost none of), nor does it discuss critical performance parameters such as the rejection ratio of off-axis light entry, which is what GK is claiming to be an issue, but which the optical assembly is designed to reject, nor does it discuss the existence of, or the performance aspects, i.e. extinguishing ratio for visible light, of the IR pass filter in the optical assembly whose purpose is specifically to reject visible light, i.e. the think GK is claiming to be an issue ...... <- See this is what someone who understands the problem writes, not links that add little to the discussion, nor obfuscating remarks related to wave/particle duality, or lots of words that have no relation to the issue being raised as you did. All of this is moot of course, as data loss, jitter, etc. are easily measured on a CD if one possesses the right tools, which are not even that expensive. GK is not proposing a theory in the scientific sense, it is at best a hypothesis, but really it appears to be more marketing blurb. The person claiming to hear a difference is under no obligation to do anything, but if they would like to convince others, other than a small subset, then having some proof that it does as claimed (easily done in this case with error / jitter measurement), or at least a sound hypothesis that takes into account real aspects of the optical system is going to help. Otherwise people like me who do understand the problem, will point out obvious holes in their reasoning, and while the narrow subset may not care, others will read what I and others write and form a healthy level of doubt to the claims. |
atdavid It is irrelevant. He mentions the dual slit experiment which is specific to wave particle duality which does not apply with a simple optical detector. >>>>That’s how CDs work you silly goose. It’s quantum mechanical, the laser is a quantum mechanical device. A Quantum Well. The laser beam is coherent light. Quantum mechanical. “Pits” and “lands” on the CD represent 1s and 0s, in discrete blocks, so when the laser beam strikes a “land” reflective area the full reflected wave is returned to the photodetector, but when the laser beam strike a “pit” the geometry is such that the light wave cancels and there is no reflected signal. It’s a series of ONs and OFFs. That’s how the system figures out the data steam from the physical data on the CD. Theoretically, anyway, as I’ve oft said it’s got some serious issues. Scattered light is one of the issues. So, it’s the same thing as the double slit experiment - light destructively and constructively interfering. Say Hallelujah, brothers! 🤗 🤗 🤗 |
Unfortunately I have to agree with you 100% on this ... thecarpathian798 posts12-09-2019 1:48pm"...I have no intention of boring other participants..." |
And yet you used classical EM to explain wave cancellation. Funny that. Could it be that because classical EM is more than accurate enough to describe in more that sufficient detail how a CD player work? geoffkait18,791 posts12-09-2019 2:18pmatdavid |
A large number of posts on many threads boil down to: i have theory that says what you hear isn’t possible (by the stated mechanism) so you must be wrong, or deluded. Certainly people can want to believe things, and certainly their are dishonest people, but if a large number of people hear a difference it seems reasonable that it might be worth checking out. Unless of course you are posting for other reasons. and David and C3 (if he’s posting on this thread) you both need to reread that quote by the physicist in the other thread. It was a max Planck quote about how new beliefs spread (and don’t) |
"Oh, one last but very important point. In terms of simple logic the situation goes like this- the person who hears a difference is under no obligation to prove or substantiate it with physical theory. That's one. And two would be, if they do go on to earn bonus points by offering up a proposed physical theory (as GK has done) its sufficient to show that it COULD possibly be an explanation. That's just the way it goes. " EXACTLY / EXCELLENT |
There is a big difference between "offering up a theory", and offering up something approaching a viable theory. When that "theory" has holes so big you can drive a Kenworth through it, I don't think it qualifies as viable any more. When that "theory" could be easily verified, but is not, then it loses much of its claim to viability. its sufficient to show that it COULD possibly be an explanation. |
atdavid7"There is a big difference between "offering up a theory", and offering up something approaching a viable theory. When that "theory" has holes so big" The problem is that when presented with a theory your usual and customary practice is to apply a fact or two derived from Wikipedia and then use that to dismiss, dispel, or "disprove" the concept that you cannot grasp, comprehend, or that conflicts with your belief system which is, again, based on Wikipedia it is all part of you're compelling need to be seen as authoritative, expert, and intellectual. |
rodman99999 ... In terms of simple logic the situation goes like this- the person who hears a difference is under no obligation to prove or substantiate it with physical theory. That’s one. And two would be, if they do go on to earn bonus points by offering up a proposed physical theory (as GK has done) its sufficient to show that it COULD possibly be an explanation.Agreed, and I’ve been saying basically the same thing here for years. But there will always be a few of the naysayers who demand otherwise, as atdavid does so predictably, sometimes dismissing suggestions with just a wave of the hand and a Wikipedia quote. |
atdavid keeps saying the theory has big holes in it but never says what they are. Very sneaky. A clever trick oft employed by Cargo Cultists and pseudo scientists. We’ve heard it all before - It disobeys the laws of science. It’s marketing. It doesn’t prove anything. It has big holes in it. Yada yada yada. Then he will find fault with some triviality or irrelevancy and try to claim victory. It’s so transparent. It’s always everyone else who’s illogical. Standard tactics of the professional debunker. You can’t debunk something that’s not bunk. Hel-loo! Juror #3 - You can’t prove it! 😡 |
@cleeds- Thanks, but- I was quoting and agreeing with millercarbon, who had expounded on, what I’ve always promoted on these threads(ie: experimentation). Also(far as atdavid’s weak, "viablility" objection); one could probably, "drive a Kenworth through" the theory that we’re all occupying a hologram, made up of strung together bits of information. Yet; there are very learned/reputable Physicists, that are currently trying to prove just that. NO theory has ever proven anything. Theories are always propositions, put forth to try and explain observed phenomena, and can only be PROVEN through experimentation. |
432 hertz intonization , lower your A note by 8hz and all octaves like when you play your violin, most pros do this or correct bu string position. notice no frets on similar insrtuments, fretless basses. many rock bassits also do this. not reasonable done with commercial digital gear, but tweejed Rpm will mimic it on a R to R feel free to lookup all the neural effects on the brains"hearing" thisthe phase ear to ear relationship gives the timing difference recieved across the standard sized head . neuurons have a itme lag just like wire. if this werent real we could not detect direction. listen to and look at FFT on your Analyzer and you will see what you can hear by the small micro sec shift and ot the tiny phase shift. very apparent when playing an A natural sitting inan Anachohic chamber |
please get your wife on as an expert. advisor thats the kind of real knowlege this place needs. and I am not or ever was claiming better/worse, or medical hurt by wrong tuning---all just point out the huge disparity in the many degrees of separation disparity from changing things in an audio system. Ie fuse direction, wire breakin etc. I can write pages at a whim, i used to write Govt JAN/MIL standards and there can be 60 pages for a 8-32 philips screw....LOL I gots all day/night to just banter. i dont sleep much..with ptsd. anyhow back to post #1 and ppplease some musiciaans chime in here. falco is whifes phips and bird rack calibrated to the auditory recpetors under the scalp. mine had to be altered from the titanium plate thats now there. the repolarizing NA in the diffusion zone is tricky. she can help me with a comming patent which may alter the mu receptors in opiate addiction with phased signals making the brain resonate like in a humming montra sound... all injected with 4 probes and 2 earbuds... no anything like binerual depression effects. well you got me started on something more. so feel free to e mail me at anytime hemigreg@aol.com its in conjunction with a local addiction/neuralogist Dr Surosky of glencove addiction center. |
Cleeds, nothink, rodman, even GK, all playing from the same anti-science playbook, attack the poster, not the post. Why? Because you can’t. You can’t because you don’t even understand the posts. You just ra-ra around anything that says what you want to believe because it makes you feel safe. I would love to see you try to actually refute the content of my posts. I could use the laugh! It is just downright pathetic that you need to claim that anyone more knowledgeable than you must be quoting Wikipedia (and yet you can't show where I have quoted Wikipedia ... and the odd time I do, I will say that I am). |
GK Kenworth sized holes:
|
continued from previous mine had to be altered from the titanium plate thats now there. the repolarizing NA in the diffusion zone is tricky. I rebuilt a 32 ch network analyzer added 1meg:1 gain op amps differential inputs. 16 +/_ chs.this can sense the repolarization of the Na and Ca charge from eack nerve pulse-to put it bascic. the balance at fing the virtual zero is hard though. but it allows mt to quantify 16 different cross sections and effects of subconcious and cons inputs. also plotting the ELF freqs of restful brain like a few HZ yea we all love low bsss notes thats why ive done this since the 70 at Govt companies for military "mind control" evel went on LSD snd sleep tests at mit and new york institute of tech and its quack ciro school. the writing is messed up by my brain injury and induced parkinscisom. ive tried to build new neurotransmitters but doesent work too well so sometimes i go to voice recongitonn typing. Ive got published works in the materials science review like 1998. presented in Boston. |
"Well, how does one bring it into tune??" you tune it "everything affects everything else" mg you guys should try doing stuff once in a while :) For those who have already converted to Low Mass Tunable systems, you’re so far ahead of the curve it does make these threads a little odd if not hilarious. http://www.michaelgreenaudio.net/ |
berner99, There are any number of things that very large numbers of people believe in that simply are not true. I would be here probably all night making up a list of them, and we are not talking 1 or 2 people, we are talking millions (or more). You have to admit there is a big difference from "heard a difference" and "thought I heard a difference", with the latter being the case 99% of the time on these forums. Anyone who thinks they are immune to bias w.r.t what they are hearing is fooling only themselves. Our memory for subtle audio differences is exceptionally poor. Mood alone, changes in sitting position, etc. will have bigger impacts than many things discussed. Humidity will have a bigger effect. This bias is why anyone who researches audible effects uses at a minimum blind testing and preferably double blind testing. Even ad-hoc blind tests can show a perceived difference really was not there. Quoting Max Planck w.r.t. what is discussed here is akin to giving validity to those who promote the earth being flat. A scientist will listen to anecdotal evidence to provide inspiration, but, and a big but, they don't accept it as factual until tested, as above, with proper tests. Then they will try to isolate causes and effects. You will note the loudest proponents of "questionable" sonic methods are the ones most against any formal testing. Why is that? What are they afraid of (other than being wrong)? berner9922 posts12-09-2019 2:59pmA large number of posts on many threads boil down to: |
Clearthink, Once again, I will remind you that this is a libellous statement. Think what you want, but when you libel someone online, you can be legally responsible. You seem to like to make these claims. One day it will catch up to you. Keep in mind if sued, you would need to prove I used Wikipedia. Your personal attacks with 0, and I do mean 0 content related to my posts are of no value. clearthink993 posts12-09-2019 4:03pm |
Humidity will have a bigger effect. This bias is why anyone who researches audible
yes and airdensity/press ie altitude. maybe ill market mounitn speakers that can acoustic impedance couple the thin air better.... ps we ran all jan/mil acoustic at Std temp/press 1000mb@72deg 30% non turblent laminar from above . |
At David, "You have to admit there is a big difference from "heard a difference" and "thought I heard a difference", with the latter being the case 99% of the time on these forums. " ***And you are omniscient and know this to be true*** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AtDavid’s lines above are what every "skeptical" post on these "controversial" topics is saying--my theory (beliefs in my head) are correct, and I don’t believe your evidence. AtDavid, Scientists may not accept a theory until they collect data and analyze it. But you are better--you reject a theory with no data. |
@atdavid, that was a long list of “holes.” Unfortunately, there are some serious holes in your so-called holes. Especially the ones you seem to value the most. At least you avoided your objection, “why don’t you just go to streaming?” I guess you must have changed your mind about that one. 😛 1. If “high quality” CD players read until correct that must mean all other non-“high quality” players have problems reading the CDs. if your claim is even true, which I tend to doubt. If it is true that high quality CD players have solutions for incorrect reading of the CD why is there never any discussion of scattered laser light issues in CD players? Is it because everyone accepts on blind faith that CDs are perfect sound forever? 😳 2. The insides of the CD players are not non-reflective. Even if the insides are painted black and the tray is black it doesn’t absorb infrared light. The color black especially if shiny is not very good at absorbing visible light either. No color is good at absorbing invisible infrared light. We’ve already been over that. 3. Scattered light comes out of the CD at many different angles, it even comes out through the outer edge, which is why greening the outer edge has some audible effect, due to absorption of the visible red part. Since the interior of the transport cannot absorb the scattered light, the interior of the transport lights up like a Christmas tree. Since it’s filled with light obviously some of that light gets into the detector. The detector is just some cheap hunk of junk that accepts a range of wavelengths of light. The CD laser emits about 3 x 10^15 photons per second. So there is obviously no deficit of scattered photons inside the transport. 4. As I’ve already pointed out the Reed Solomon error detection/correction codes are not able to deal with the scattered light problem. If they could then the humble Green Pen wouldn’t be audible. Nor would New Dark Matter. The CD laser servo feedback system likewise is incapable of keeping the nanoscale laser beam on the nanoscale data spiral on the CD. That’s why vibration is such a big problem for CD players and why vibration isolation and damping both the CD and transport motor are necessary for best results. |
| Post removed |
I give you due credit atdavid for throwing everything but the kitchen sink at my theory. Unfortunately, in spite of all your quibbling and argumentativeness (if that is even a word) the scattered light problems persist in most if not all CD players - most likely because - like you - the designers are unaware of the problem or else swept it under the rug. 🧹 ”Where is the data?” That’s funny. Where is the experiment? |
atdavid Your ignorance is showing GK. Please pull up your pants. No one wants to see that. >>>>Actually I think you probably do. 👀 Can I suggest cooling off in a nice long cold shower? |
I am very interested by the power of sounds to heal....I begin to self experiment with sounds effect on myself about a year ago, modifying consciously my listening habits...This is the reason why the Op remark about tuning seems to me very important...It is not a too much known fact in the general population this tuning problem around the tuning fork...But it is a way more important problem that what seems to meet the eyes... In a way unbeknownst to us, the frequencies we lives in affect us in some direction that we had choosen or not...Music is a question of moods and personal taste only up to a point...Metaphorically speaking, but science someday will meet poetry, it is frequencies, these we created and entertained and those others we do not, that pilot our souls ... Thanks to the OP for proposing this important tuning problem...And he is right, all tweaks or room controls etc will not correct this basic social, cultural, fact affecting not only music but souls... |
There are many ways to tune a system. And they have been mentioned and perhaps even discussed many times before. Tiny little bowl resonators, Mpingo discs, suspending or elevating cables, tube traps and Helmholtz resonators, Schumann resonance generators, crystals, vibration isolation and resonance control, acoustic diffusers and absorbers. Folks, it’s not really rocket science. 🚀 No, speakers are not (rpt not) like musical instruments. You can tune an audio system, you can tune a car but you can’t tuna fish 🐟. Some audiophile tuning devices and tweaks weigh almost as little as a human soul, which has been estimated to weigh about a microgram. Hey, guys! Let’s start a new thread, “How small and insignificant looking or sounding can something be and still influence the sound?” |
