Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex ATR-102 opinion (was MD5 Hash Generators

[Andrew Hamilton <ahamilton@xxxxxxxx>]

The Dunn paper involved tests.  I don't recall if these were double-blind
ABX or some other form, but it was somewhat academic in methodology and
scope.  Has anyone done double-blind ABX tests on De-Gaussing a CD versus
not?
What about on Smudging the room (or not)?  Should the Shaman be also a
Healer?  There may be skewed results in the Scientific approach, but isn't
that what we're trying to get away from? (:  Seriously, Dr. Who talked about
a race who were intelligent enough, but who spent all of their time trying
to escape what they felt was the trap of Rational thought.  Maybe these mods
are rituals for returning to the original (ultimately Enlightened) way of
hearing, rather than for us to expect a static, Absolute performance upgrade
achievement.  We wouldn't be able to appreciate that at all times, anyway.
Now, where are those beer goggles? (:   (Now, Hash generators...)


_andrew  


On 1/22/08 6:10 PM, "Tom Fine" <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> More importantly, Bruce, I don't want to throw a big bucket of facts on the
> audiophillic fire here,
> but "de-gaussing, polishing, trimming, etc" is HOOEY, JUNK "SCIENCE", P. T.
> BARNUMESQUE HOKUM!!!
> This is why I can't take those "high end audio" magazines seriously -- they
> will sell advertising
> and write articles about this junk!
> 
> -- Tom Fine
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Hamilton" <ahamilton@xxxxxxxx>
> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex ATR-102 opinion (was MD5 Hash Generators
> 
> 
>> On 1/22/08 1:42 PM, "Bruce Kinch" <bckinch@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> One problem with the "bits iz bits" argument is that all sorts of
>>> tweaks (not just better players/DACS) change (often subjectively
>>> improving) the sound of CDs - de-gaussing, polishing, trimming, etc.
>>> One of the nice things a good DAC can do is demonstrate how a
>>> "bit-perfect" CD-R copy can sound better than the original CD, and that
>>> is truly weird.
>> 
>> 
>> This is truly weird.  I thought that Dr. Dunn's/Prism Sound AES paper on
>> bit-identical CDs sounding different stated that the differences all
>> disappeared when using an external DAC.  It's the internal (to the CD
>> player) DAC which he surmised gets its quartz timing futz'd by the servo
>> arm's tracking fluctuations caused by a hard-to-read (less reflective) disc.
>> So a slow burn on compatible media might make a better reference disc than a
>> fast burn on compatible media (which might make for fewer errors but sound
>> worse (on a CD player that is using its built-in DACs) and is, ironically,
>> the better master disc!).
>> 
>> _andrew
>> 

--