CD transports and resonance
 

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 06 Nov 2004 11:27:16 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

I have no wish to 'endow' (DP) anything. I'm reporting less distortion in
highly modulated passages when a transport is damped.

No, you're reporting that you *think* something is happening. You have
as yet shown no indication that anything *real* is occuring.
--

If I were Andy I'd be feeling like someone asked to prove, for ever,
evidence of something that doesn't exist in the empirical world. Andy can't
prove what he hears, and I'm inclined to think he (of all people) is aware
of placebo-type effects. Why can't you turn this round - instead of asking
him to prove it, you disprove it. Simple hypothesis - test it and see what
happens.

I suspect that behind your rather abrupt manner and bluster is a charitable
soul trying to dissuade people from throwing time and money at what you see
to be a pointless grail. I can't prove it though ;-).

Rob

CD transports and resonance
 

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 06 Nov 2004 15:15:40 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

To resolve, employ suitable measurements. Otherwise we (including you)
have no
real idea if the effects you describe have anything to do with the
'causes' you
assume.

Hello Jim - I'm open minded - my assumption is that it's to do with
resonance,
I suppose, but I've been very clear in saying I don't understand how this
happens. I'm not in a position to measure, so my next step is to find
others
who have observed similar things and others who can offer some kind of
explanation based on their own empirical knowledge. Andy

Actually, your assumption is that there *is* a real effect.
--

No, I read that as a finding. The assumption - and I think it's not
unreasonable - is that stabilising a cd mechanism brings audible benefits. I
would find that assumption reasonable, in the sense that it's worthy of
test, because of the massive engineering you see in some CDPs and stated
preferences for particular mechanisms. I have no idea why, btw, but I'd be
curious if I could be bothered.

Rob

CD transports and resonance
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
Andy Evans wrote:

Apart from the fact that I can hear it. There's no assurance that you
have any
technical knowledge that can explain it. I don't mind the fact that you
can't
explain it - our knowledge always has limitations.

Your ear is a transducer - pressure to electrical impulses.

we have mics available that can hear stuff humans cant (demonstrably -
animals can hear the difference in the recordings where humans cant)

therefore the tool to measure your claimed effect is available.


Hi - have you got a link?

either prove it or **** off.

Thanks

Rob

CD transports and resonance
 

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 19:42:58 -0000, "Rob"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On 06 Nov 2004 11:27:16 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

I have no wish to 'endow' (DP) anything. I'm reporting less distortion in
highly modulated passages when a transport is damped.

No, you're reporting that you *think* something is happening. You have
as yet shown no indication that anything *real* is occuring.
--

If I were Andy I'd be feeling like someone asked to prove, for ever,
evidence of something that doesn't exist in the empirical world. Andy can't
prove what he hears, and I'm inclined to think he (of all people) is aware
of placebo-type effects. Why can't you turn this round - instead of asking
him to prove it, you disprove it. Simple hypothesis - test it and see what
happens.

You haven't really thought this one through, have you. If somebody
says there is no difference, then in any test all they have to say is
"I can't hear a difference". That applies whether the difference
exists or not. If somebody claims to hear a difference, they can prove
it conclusively by identifying by sound alone - job done.

Andy surprises me rather with his claims because he is fairly uniquely
positioned in his psychological training to understand the reasoning
and processes, yet chooses to ignore all his training and experience.

I know that it is not nice to have your row of soldiers knocked down,
but the experience can be both illuminating and cathartic. Having
knocked them down, of course, you can then move on to something more
productive.

I suspect that behind your rather abrupt manner and bluster is a charitable
soul trying to dissuade people from throwing time and money at what you see
to be a pointless grail. I can't prove it though ;-).

Rob


I think you are right that many of us here do genuinely want people to
listen with their ears and not go blowing valuable time and money on
fruitless pursuits. Of course there is the point that the chase itself
can be fun - but it is much more fun when yo know that there is some
chance of there actually being a prize at the end.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

CD transports and resonance
 

In article ,
Rob wrote:
Andy can't prove what he hears, and I'm inclined to think he (of all
people) is aware of placebo-type effects.

Yet is continually offering up for comments things he can 'hear' that
others wouldn't.

--
*Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

CD transports and resonance
 

I have no idea why, btw, but I'd be
curious if I could be bothered.

Hello Rob - you summed up the situation quite neatly. Like you I have no idea
why, and as you can see I have had no explanation. I put some time into this
because, like you, I was curious and in my case I had some mechs lying about.
New CD transports aren't exactly chump change, so it makes sense to start with
what one has. Andy

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

CD transports and resonance
 

In article ,
Rob wrote:
The assumption - and I think it's not unreasonable - is that
stabilising a cd mechanism brings audible benefits.

It would do if a record player. They can suffer from all sorts of
vibration influenced effects.

But a CD player is surprisingly digital. Assuming that digital signal can
still be read it will work normally. If it is subjected to severe
vibration it will stop - or at least produce some alarming noises. Nothing
really in between.

--
*How much deeper would the oceans be without sponges? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

CD transports and resonance
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 19:42:58 -0000, "Rob"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
. ..
On 06 Nov 2004 11:27:16 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

I have no wish to 'endow' (DP) anything. I'm reporting less distortion
in
highly modulated passages when a transport is damped.

No, you're reporting that you *think* something is happening. You have
as yet shown no indication that anything *real* is occuring.
--

If I were Andy I'd be feeling like someone asked to prove, for ever,
evidence of something that doesn't exist in the empirical world. Andy
can't
prove what he hears, and I'm inclined to think he (of all people) is aware
of placebo-type effects. Why can't you turn this round - instead of asking
him to prove it, you disprove it. Simple hypothesis - test it and see what
happens.

You haven't really thought this one through, have you. If somebody
says there is no difference, then in any test all they have to say is
"I can't hear a difference". That applies whether the difference
exists or not. If somebody claims to hear a difference, they can prove
it conclusively by identifying by sound alone - job done.

:-). Complete and utter nonsense. The proper test is antithesis - look it
up.

Andy surprises me rather with his claims because he is fairly uniquely
positioned in his psychological training to understand the reasoning
and processes, yet chooses to ignore all his training and experience.

Do you have any evidence of this?

I know that it is not nice to have your row of soldiers knocked down,
but the experience can be both illuminating and cathartic. Having
knocked them down, of course, you can then move on to something more
productive.

I really don't think this is what Andy is doing - I see it as a simple
test/pastime. I wouldn't presume to judge a person's productivity on the
basis of this little exchange.

I suspect that behind your rather abrupt manner and bluster is a
charitable
soul trying to dissuade people from throwing time and money at what you
see
to be a pointless grail. I can't prove it though ;-).

Rob


I think you are right that many of us here do genuinely want people to
listen with their ears and not go blowing valuable time and money on
fruitless pursuits. Of course there is the point that the chase itself
can be fun - but it is much more fun when yo know that there is some
chance of there actually being a prize at the end.

There is a chance - that is, er, the point. It may be slim but I find an
inquiring mind fascinating. How many massive breakthroughs to our
understanding of the physical world have been made by people who were told
'Nope, it's impossible'. Challenge hegemony.

Rob

CD transports and resonance
 

Andy surprises me rather with his claims because he is fairly uniquely
positioned in his psychological training to understand the reasoning and
processes

Hello Don! I'm not making claims (I've never said anyone else would be able to
replicate this), as Rob said I'm making an observation. Now, if you have read
your Freud you will know that what distinguished his work was that he didn't
simply dismiss his personal observations - he looked for solutions which fitted
his observations (a good example is his dream analysis after being turned down
for an important post in his home town). Now, I have made an observation which
I consider to be worth pursuing, and one which as we all know is paradoxical in
binary terms. I've stated that I have no explanation for what I hear, that I do
hear it, that I can't measure it because I have neither the equipment nor the
knowledge. I then said "if others want to try this it's fairly cheap and
simple". I asked if anyone has empirical knowledge of this from their own
experience, and the answer so far is no. What I have received is opinions to
the effect that if those giving such opinions were in my home listening to my
equipment they would hear nothing. Now, since I can say with some confidence
that nobody is in my home and in a position to ratify their opinions, it needs
neither science nor psychology to conclude that they cannot personally comment
on the sound of my equipment. Rob, for one, seems to understand this perfectly
well.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

CD transports and resonance
 

On 06 Nov 2004 20:31:29 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:


Andy surprises me rather with his claims because he is fairly uniquely
positioned in his psychological training to understand the reasoning and
processes

Hello Don! I'm not making claims (I've never said anyone else would be able to
replicate this), as Rob said I'm making an observation. Now, if you have read
your Freud you will know that what distinguished his work was that he didn't
simply dismiss his personal observations - he looked for solutions which fitted
his observations (a good example is his dream analysis after being turned down
for an important post in his home town). Now, I have made an observation which
I consider to be worth pursuing, and one which as we all know is paradoxical in
binary terms. I've stated that I have no explanation for what I hear, that I do
hear it, that I can't measure it because I have neither the equipment nor the
knowledge. I then said "if others want to try this it's fairly cheap and
simple". I asked if anyone has empirical knowledge of this from their own
experience, and the answer so far is no. What I have received is opinions to
the effect that if those giving such opinions were in my home listening to my
equipment they would hear nothing. Now, since I can say with some confidence
that nobody is in my home and in a position to ratify their opinions, it needs
neither science nor psychology to conclude that they cannot personally comment
on the sound of my equipment. Rob, for one, seems to understand this perfectly
well.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

I know you have made observations - but of course once you report and
observation and say "this happens" it becomes a claim - and that is
what we see.

As for testing your observations/claims - that is really quite simple
and need cost very little - even nothing. All it takes is for somebody
independent to change between two sources in a random fashion, and for
you to see if you can tell which is which without any sighted bias.
This was the source of my surprise, because your training would lead
me to believe that this was the minimum you would do before even
considering reporting to the world.

You have indeed stated that you have no explanation for what you hear,
but that really isn't so, is it? You have all the explanation you
could wish for in your training - yet you refuse to apply it. Why?

I have heard big differences between things myself in the past which
have evaporated when I didn't know which was which. Because of that, I
believe that reporting differences based on circumstances which permit
sighted bias is simply a pointless exercise. ANd anybody even slightly
versed in the principles of psychological testing should be well aware
of that. Of course it is great for a chat down the pub, but not very
helpful in an actual audio forum like this.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com