Shadorne,
Webster's definition of scientific method: "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."
The problem in the digital domain is jitter, a widely accepted phenomenon. Your hypothesis (AFAIK based purely on theoretical reading) seems to be that that reclocking DACs, jitter jails, etc., reduce jitter introduced through optics & transport to irrevelevancy. Further data acquisition (testing of pens, surface treatments, transport mods, etc.) may test your hypothesis-- perhaps disproved by the evidence of your ears.
Admission: I use and enjoy CD Stop light.
|
Douglas, while I think it's prudent to keep a balance between theoretical and empirical discussion, IMO the matter of jitter is a case in point that argues for an empirical approach involving an open mind and careful listening tests. As discussed in a recent Absolute Sound or Stereophile retrospective, at an early stage in RBCD, based on theoretical speculation, the International Society of Audio Engineers were luddites in their determination not to accept that jitter merited further consideration as a problem. But manufacturers persisted, and to this day we see continuing heroic efforts like Esoteric rubidium clock and Audiocom Ultraclock demonstrating that the ear can discern jitter down to a half billionth part. A leading recording engineer claims he can hear variations of a few picoseconds. So with respect to the problem of jitter, a little knowledge may be a dangerous thing if untested through listening. |
Far from an imaginative leap into brilliant pebbles & the like, the theory with the colored edge treatment is that it filters out refracted light that may otherwise be reintroduced into the optics. It's also conceivable that a shiny smooth surface provided by Rainex could minimize refraction. But whatever the science, it's generally accepted that jitter problems can be introduced through the optics. The Sony service documentation for my CDP includes a laser allignment procedure to use with a scope that is performed specifically to minimize jitter. I have personally found that improvements to DC power into the motor/servo mechanism of my SCD-1 make an audible improvement in the sound of the transport. And this is a CDP that in the original Stereophile review exhibited very low jitter in stock fitment. So the basic quality of the transport is not at issue.
"My wife...would definitely think I was completely wacko."
My wife feels this way about me, particularly in all things relating to audio. Unfortunately the problem is not that the slippery slope tends down toward pebbles, but rather upward toward $10K components. For her a $5 bottle of Rainex would be a welcome relief. |
I agree that the best components most clearly reveal the effect of tweaks. The clearer the window, the more visible the remaining smudge. I think this phenomenon is what accounts for the hyperbole of magazine reviewers, who when describing near-SOTA equipment appear to be making a big deals about splitting hairs. My view is that the hobby is all about closing the small gap between 9/10s and 10/10s, which separates a great system from realism. You never get there, but according to Zeno's paradox, through small steps you can close the gap by halves, and feel at each step like you've made a 50% improvement.
The question for anybody with budget constraints becomes what is the most cost-effective step at the margin. We all have different ways of looking at this. As a maker of DIY cables, I've always found that a dollar committed to improving electronics is preferable to that dollar spent on ANY commercial cable. Unfortunately, I have come to this conclusion after accumulating a drawer full of Synergistics, Audioquest, Tara, Goertz, & MIT cables. Yet there are those who on general principles will not spend one Yankee dollar to test the value proposition of a Sharpie.
I'll check out the Rainex. As my CD Stop Light is gone, I need to find another pen to revisit this experiment. The green Sharpie may be good. Geoff Kait likes a purple pen-- and in spite of pebbles & teleportation he's not always wrong. |
Going into this experiment I will admit to being biased in favor of Rain-X. Some years ago Andy Rooney of 60 Minutes attempted to debunk this fine product as an example of consumer hucksterism. He scoffed at it, noting with some pride the superiority of the good ole fashioned American-made windshield wiper. He then made a half-hearted palsied attempt to rub Rain-X into an automobile windshield before watching it fail to work. Now I have used this product successfully for many years, and know that for it to work as designed, one must carefully follow directions and apply generously, and reapply again after drying. Generally speaking, one may take any manufacturer's claim to apply its product twice as an exploitative attempt to increase user consumption, but in the case of Rain-X, this is not a valid criticism. Rain-X works and sheds rain better than the best windshield wipers at speeds above 30 mph. Shadorne, please give Rain-X a chance, remembering always to follow the directions.
|
Here is thorough early treatise from Stereophile on the subject of these tweaks. Includes technical discussion of related optical and electrical factors.
http://www.stereophile.com/reference/590jitter/
Relevant extracts from the non-technical sections of the article:
"The intensity of my interest in the subject was heightened by a product called "CD Stoplight," marketed by AudioPrism. CD Stoplight is a green paint applied to the outside edge of a CD (not the disc surface, but the 1.2mm disc thickness) that reportedly improves sound quality. I could not in my wildest imagination see how green paint on the disc edge could change, for better or worse, a CD's sound. However, trusting my ears as the definitive test, I compared treated to untreated discs and was flabbergasted. Soundstage depth increased, mids and highs were smoother with less grain, and the presentation became more musically involving."
"The makers of CD Stoplight claim to have measured a difference in the recovered analog output signal with a treated disc. They played a pure tone from a test disc and measured the spectral content on either side of the tone. Reportedly, a CD Stoplight-treated disc produces lower-amplitude sidebands around the pure frequency. Just as this was going to press, AudioPrism faxed me graphs made on a Hewlett-Packard spectrum analyzer that support their findings. Without knowing all the measurement details, the graphs do appear to show a slightly lower noise floor after the addition of CD Stoplight."
"From my measurements, it is apparent that none of these CD tweaks have any effect on a player's error-correction ability or on the amount of jitter in the HF signal. However, it is beyond doubt that they increase the musicality of CDs. Just as in analog audio, there are things going on in digital audio that have not been identified, but influence sonic characteristics. There is a real need to explore these questions through empirical measurement and by listening. I am convinced that undiscovered optical phenomena in CD playback affect sound quality. Only by combining critical listening with the scientific method can these mysteries be solved.
"All our knowledge brings us nearer to our ignorance."" |
In the Stereophile article, it's interesting how much credible scientific measurement & analysis the authors poured into examining a clearly observable phenomenon that in the end eluded the current limitations of science. CD Stop Light got to the heart that magazine's philosophy of separating equipment reviews (and usually associated equipment reviewers) into two camps, who separately measure specifications and conduct listening tests. Sometimes listening perceptions deviate from expectations based upon measured specs. But to dismiss the ear as an instrument is maladroit. Certainly not all reviewers are unbiased, but since the reviewer in the article claimed to bring scepticism into his review, his positive opinion formed after listening should be taken seriously. Moreover, when everyone in a large enough statistical sample forms a positive opinion through listening, except for one poster who refuses to join the experiment, then one must seriously consider that positive and negative biases eventually cancel out-- unless like David Hume you entertain the probability of mass hallucination in any public forum.
Moveover, the opinion that positive bias prevails among Audiophiles to the point that any change is perceived as an improvement, is easily controverted by the high incidence of equipment churn and audiophile nervosa. |
I'm curious how far into the digital domain Shadorne extends his viewpoint that bits are bits. I too can think of no explanation for why CD media tweaks-- or for that matter tweaks to the optical section of any transport-- should impact sound. And yet I have heard it, and moreover the industry has produced continuous improvement in the manufacture of transport optics & mechanicals up to the current estimable TEAC VRDS-NEO.
Moreover, I have two transports that demonstrate conclusively that "bit ain't just bits." One is a Sony SCD-1, in which the digital section has been modified with improvements to power and passive components in the digital signal path; the other is a stock 777ES (which in stock form has a digital section identical to a stock SCD-1.) I can listen to just the transport sections of both units through identical PDIF cable and identical external Theta Gen 5a DAC, and hear a night and day difference. Go figure. |
I'll add that when I modded that Sony, I started with changes to power into the optics, motor, and servo, and worked my way through the various digital circuits, dealing with replacement of the master clock last. I wanted to be able to distinguish between collective changes made in the digital domain and a clock upgrade. Taken together, changes in the digital section other than the clock, surpassed the replacement clock in significance. Go figure. |
"Bit is just bits," someone said.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," Freud said.
But Freud also said:
"My boy, smoking is one of the greatest and cheapest enjoyments in life, and if you decide in advance not to smoke, I can only feel sorry for you." (Freud: A Life for Our Time. Peter Gay, 1989, Anchor Books/Doubleday.) |
At high velocity where aerodynamic friction becomes significant, it may be true that the smooth surface presented by Rain-X on a windshield may increase both maximum velocity and gas mileage. |
Eldartfort, at a younger age I did indeed test the limit of a turbo-charged BMW motorcycle at max speed. Rain-X on a CD is safer & more suited to age and temperment today. Closer to the analogy of hifi, I have no doubt that the limbic system of a Road & Track and Motorcylist enthusiast is wired to make a purchase decision based in part on the tested maximum speed of a sports vehicle-- though the buyer will never use the vehicle at close to that maximum speed. There are bicylists who acquire Campagnolo's latest fibre gruppo for the tangible or intangible advantage of shaving several grams or of obtaining minute marginal improvements in aerodynamics at speed. Associations with performance & even the feint prospect of perfectionism is partly what drives audiophiles toward purchase of statement systems and little tweaks, apart from any interest in music or the real world. The obverse is someone like Shadorne defending his position by falling back on a tin ear or the muddiness of his Target system. Shadorne has obviously never owned a nice Ferrari Daytona or Lambo Miura with six Weber DCOE carbs: runs perfectly when tuned but not at all at other times. A highly transparent audio system can be similarly revealing.
You say you would pay $2.99 for a bottle of Rain-X because it could be used as intended on the car windshield in the event it fails to improve CDs. (1) In the absence of personal experience, why are you prepared to accept the claim that Rain-X is any more effective on a car than on a CD? (2) Why set a limit of $2.99 for a bottle of Rain-X? Why not $3.99 or $9.99, or any price up to full cost of a new transport that makes a difference equal to the improvement of Rain-X? (3) If the windshield wiper on your Mercedes were to break, would you spend $500 to repair the wipers, or $499.99 for a bottle of Rain-X? |
This evening I finally spent some time with Rain-X, treating Lee Konitz's fine new "Deep Lee" and Dave Douglas's "Strange Liberation." The Douglas album had previously been treated with CD Stop Light edge treatment. In addition to sounding clearer & cleaner & exhibiting more transient snap, the Rain-X treated CDs have more bass sock and sound smoother and suppler. Images seem rounder and soundstage larger. I think the sense of increased loudness is due to larger images and soundstage, rather than to an increase in volume level.
The improvements are discernable and worthwhile, but I would not say that they're dramatic. A very worthwhile experiment. |
