Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g (Read 26086 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #50 –
I won't repeat all I've already said, but just want to complete 2BDecided's post :

When we play a CD, the speakers play music, not bits. So there's already a problem with the logic saying that 0 are 0s and 1 are 1s. No one's interested in hearing a voice saying faithfully "0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0"...
Those numbers are the level that the waveform must take at given intervals of times : each 1/44100 of a second. During playback, the player generates the electric voltage given by the numbers, at the same time intervals.

But it's useless to keep these numbers error free if the player doesn't generate the voltage at the good time : playing 0.5 at time 0 and 0.4 at time 1, instead of 0.5 at time 0.2 and 0.4 at time 0.8, the waveform will be completely distorded. It's called "jitter".

All the digital data is perfectly losslessly played, and the result is distorded.

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #51 –
The only difference I would be willing to believe would of course be the D/A converter in different CD players. That can most certainly affect the sound. It is the sound.

As for a "1" or a "0" being slightly different. Put me down on the highly skeptical side.
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #52 –
I can accept jitter distortion, and I can accept errors in the bitstream which would result in clicks, glitches or whatever. 

What I can't accept is that coloring a CD with a marker results in "tighter bass" in the music, because of "incorrect light rays" from the laser or some such nonsense.  Give me a break.

I won't argue with anyone's subjective listening tests though.  I fully support the idea that people hear exactly what they say they hear.  I'm not calling anyone a liar when it comes to subjective impressions (especially if ABX'ed).  But I don't have to believe it, either.

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #53 –
I agree with everything you've said.

I guess, if it works for someone, then go for it. As long as the markers aren't $20 a piece
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #54 –
Don't get me wrong. I purchased one pen back in 1994 and still have plenty of green ink left. I only applied it to a few cds for testing purpose (I was real audiofreak back then).

I absolutely recommend against using it. Buy a better CD player or rip with EAC in secure mode.

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #55 –
Quote
I won't argue with anyone's subjective listening tests though. I fully support the idea that people hear exactly what they say they hear. I'm not calling anyone a liar when it comes to subjective impressions (especially if ABX'ed). But I don't have to believe it, either.


LOL! I don't think any of these things have ever been proved in a blind ABX test.

However, saying that, if someone can ABX something with a 0.2% chance of guessing, you still won't believe it, is rather strange.

David.

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #56 –
Quote
Originally posted by fewtch
I can accept jitter distortion, and I can accept errors in the bitstream which would result in clicks, glitches or whatever. 

What I can't accept is that coloring a CD with a marker results in "tighter bass" in the music, because of "incorrect light rays" from the laser or some such nonsense.  Give me a break.

Well I guess the real question is what does jitter distortion sound like? We all know what pops and clicks sound like, and they obviously have nothing to do with tighter bass or sharper treble... but perhaps jitter distortion might possibly be perceived at the ear as shifted spectral balance? I am just theorizing out my ass here of course, I have no idea whether that is actually the case.

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #57 –
a CD is nothing but a stream of bits.  You can't do something to the disc that would make the player read more bass, cuz there is no bass on there to boost.  Only a stream of bits.  If you honestly think a layer of green ink around the edge of your CD does the same thing as a DSP circuit adding bass or any other kind of processing, well... you don't know what you think you know, and need to do some more reading.

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #58 –
Uh oh, here we go
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #59 –
Quote
Originally posted by _Shorty
a CD is nothing but a stream of bits.  You can't do something to the disc that would make the player read more bass, cuz there is no bass on there to boost.  Only a stream of bits.  If you honestly think a layer of green ink around the edge of your CD does the same thing as a DSP circuit adding bass or any other kind of processing, well... you don't know what you think you know, and need to do some more reading.


This is absolutely correct. And if all the bits could be read correctly, then the discussion would be over.

But when an error occurs the DAC has to compensate. The cleaver eye will note that I found differences on old Denon models only. These models all have the same DAC chip called "lambda". Maybe this particular DAC is especially bad at compensating for bass. Please also note that I wrote firmer bass, not more bass. It means the bass was better defined, not louder.

If I still had access to one of these old models, I would make rips from the digital out and let everyone judge by themselves. Unfortunately I don't.

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #60 –
I'm not convinced at all that a layer of green ink will make any difference in any situation.  But even if it did, the only people that would give a rat's ass about it would more than likely have a player that wouldn't need it anyways, because it will already be using the error correction data to get a good stream off the disc

<edit> as for any noticable difference in the audio, it seems you're still thinking of the bitstream as if it were an analog signal that could be affected as such.  An error here and there in the bitstream is not going to add reverb, dull cymbals, clarify or muddy up bass, sloshify drums, or any other nonsense.  It is a digital bitstream, and errors in it here and there aren't going to do any of those things.  All an error bit is going to do is modify the strength of the one sample that it belongs too.  If the bit is important enough in the word in question, you'll hear a click.  You won't hear the kick drum without much definition in the initial attack.  You won't hear the trumpets sounding kind of muted. etc etc.

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #61 –
Quote
Originally posted by Annuka

If I still had access to one of these old models, I would make rips from the digital out and let everyone judge by themselves. Unfortunately I don't.


Even if there is a difference, it will not[/b] be present in the digital signal when copied.

There is a possibility that when the error correction is working, this may cause the D/A converter to produce a less correct output. This error will not be present after the digital signal is stored (or buffered), and probably not even if the signal is given directly to another "better" D/A converter.
It is just caused by the bad design of the converter and surrounding circuits.

If there is a difference!

/Andreas

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #62 –
Quote
Originally posted by 2Bdecided

However, saying that, if someone can ABX something with a 0.2% chance of guessing, you still won't believe it, is rather strange.

David.

No, it isn't strange.  ABX or no ABX, subjectivity remains subjective.  ABX is only designed to "coordinate agreement," not make hearing (which is inherently subjective) some kind of objective fact.

Of course, it could be argued that everything is subjective, and even "scientific facts" consist of "coordinated agreement."  It's an interesting argument, since "scientific facts" are routinely and commonly disproven by new ones all the time.

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #63 –
Quote
Originally posted by _Shorty
<edit> as for any noticable difference in the audio, it seems you're still thinking of the bitstream as if it were an analog signal that could be affected as such.  An error here and there in the bitstream is not going to add reverb, dull cymbals, clarify or muddy up bass, sloshify drums, or any other nonsense.  It is a digital bitstream, and errors in it here and there aren't going to do any of those things.  All an error bit is going to do is modify the strength of the one sample that it belongs too.  If the bit is important enough in the word in question, you'll hear a click.  You won't hear the kick drum without much definition in the initial attack.  You won't hear the trumpets sounding kind of muted. etc etc.

Agreed, and that's all I've been saying too. 

In fact, one of the major points of digital music is to prevent things like you mention here, which *is* a problem with analog cassette tapes and LP's.  Get some major dust on an LP, or a worn out stylus, and it's very possible that the bass will be muted, or cymbals will be dulled.  OTOH, even a cheap CD player should reproduce a reasonably accurate copy of the original (limitations being the DAC and other analog circuitry, which won't be affected by any green ink on the CD).

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #64 –
From a Plextor Press Release, January 22, 2002:

Quote
The PlexWriter 40/12/40A includes several new features designed to increase recording quality. For the first time ever, the PlexWriter drive features a black CD-holder tray, which Plextor lab tests found reduces C1 error rates. Optimized PCB circuits near the power supply help decrease noise and provide clean power to the drive, improving both jitter and deviation levels. A new diagnostic function empowers users by helping them determine whether write errors are caused by the drive, the media, or the system.
:eyebrow:

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #65 –
Quote
Originally posted by fewtch
No, it isn't strange.  ABX or no ABX, subjectivity remains subjective.   ABX is only designed to "coordinate agreement," not make hearing (which is inherently subjective) some kind of objective fact.
I'm guessing you mean that an ABX test can prove that someone hears a difference, but it can't prove why the the person can hear a difference. If I can ABX an MP3 sample, that proves (to a reasonable degree of certainty) that I can hear a difference, but if I say I can hear "tighter bass" in the original, then that statement is not proven by the ABX test.

Quote
Of course, it could be argued that everything is subjective, and even "scientific facts" consist of "coordinated agreement."  It's an interesting argument, since "scientific facts" are routinely and commonly disproven by new ones all the time.
Scientific facts are things like gravity and conservation of momentum. They can usually be directly measured or observed, so they aren't disproved very often. Scientific theories are sometimes disproven, since theories are attempts to "fill in the gaps" between facts and tie everything together. Even they are not disproven all that often, though, which is why it makes headlines when an important theory is disproven. When there are several competing "theories" to describe some phenomenon, those are really just partially-verified hypotheses.

Now, back to the subject at hand: I think a good way to test this stuff would be to capture the analog output of a modified and an unmodified CD with a high-quality recording device, then re-digitize it with a good A/D converter, and then visually compare the two waveforms on a computer (where jitter and the bouncing laser are not factors). If there are deviations in certain frequency ranges, that might support the claim that the sound is better, or at least different, on these marked CD's.

My initial reaction is to dismiss the pen claims, but I already blew off the effects of jitter and then discovered that jitter apparently does affect the sound quality. I'm not willing to be close-minded twice in the same discussion thread

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #69 –
Quote
Originally posted by Annuka
Don't believe anything you read.


I could say the same.

About these reviews, It is interesting how one of the reviewers that said that it improved sound, also said "However it can also cause tracking problems in some CD players." How can this be compatible with supposedly better reading performance? Another reviewer says "Improves all CD-players regardless of price/brand". Didn't you said that it could be good just for cheap/old cd players? Given these facts, it could be said too that this ink actually degrades performance, but this sounds good to some people for whatever reason. This happens with valve/vinyl sound, it is more distorted than average digital sound, and this is easily measurable, but for some people this is a "pleasant" kind of distortion that gives "warmth" to the sound.

So, back to green pens, many contradictory opinions/facts, don't you think so? It is the same as with megabuck cables. I believe that what really happens is that the differences these people perceive are most probabily related to placebo, expectation effect, bias, call it what you want, I mean, the differences are only in their heads. Or if in a blind test there are verified real differences, who can say that they are not due to degraded performance instead of to improved performance? A measurement would easily tell what is happening in this cases.

And about this possible placebo effect, you can argue that you did blind tests, and I don't doubt that you did, but I'd like to know more details about these tests. What was the exact procedure? Were they double blind, single blind? How many trials? How many correct identifications? Same content at painted and non painted cds?

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #70 –
One of those reviewers said this, too:

"I did not try it with my DVD yet because I have used up the tube. It should have the same effect, brighter, more detail sound."

At this point I have to hold myself back laughing out loud .  Does this person know that sound on DVD's is stored in compressed (.ac3) format... and not only that, but also encrypted, and stored "within" a .VOB file as part of the stream!

Hey I have an idea... coat the edges of video game CD's, for that extra game detail your video card just couldn't deliver before!  What will people think of next...

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #71 –
I wonder why they don't use black markers instead... it should absorb more than green !

Also, I don't understand how green marker could reduce reflexions. If the light comes from inside the disc, it will reflect exactly the same whatever ink is applied to the outside. And finally, green inks have usually red reflects.

To test line cables, I usually plug them between "tape in" and "tape out". Then I play a source, then the "monitor  switch let me hear exactly what the cable does to the sound. With a perfect cable, no difference should be heard between the "source" and "tape" positions.
I tried two handmade audiophile cables (Link Monitor and MI330), and they really modified the sound, as they should not. But they were very badly made ones, so it's not surprising.

If I have the time, I'll perform the test suggested by SometimesWarrior : I'll analogly record the output of my CD Player and compare the results. The green pen seems to have no effect here, so I'll try wiping the CD's surface with a carbon brush for vinyls, which seems to improve the sound here.

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #72 –
Quote
Originally posted by Pio2001
The green pen seems to have no effect here, so I'll try wiping the CD's surface with a carbon brush for vinyls, which seems to improve the sound here.

Clearly, people still aren't understanding how CD's work and what *digital* really means.  Perhaps a course at a local tech college... ?

How do you think a carbon brush is going to improve the sound of a CD?  As long as the laser can read the bitstream, the music sounds fine.  Even a lot of dust on the CD should have minimal effect... at most, it will cause "skipping" or clicking sounds due to uncorrectable errors (fingerprints are far worse than dust). 

Static on the surface of a CD will have *zero* effect.  Magnetism will not erase a CD (yes, maybe that has to be explained too!!!)

I'm not specifically referring to you Pio, but are people really thinking that bass, treble, stereo separation, instrument placements, etc. can be affected by imperfections related to the CD? 

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #73 –
Armor All (mentioned in that article) can rot CDs. It leaves tiny pit-marks in the plastic (visible to the naked eye), and can attack the silver layer (if it can get to it - in this way it speeds up the decay of poorly manufactured discs that were going to die eventually)

I think that's proof of the audiophile advantage: I can think of many hundreds of CDs that would sound MUCH better if Armor All were allowed to rot through 100% of the digital information contained therein!

Cheers,
David.

http://www.David.Robinson.org/thesis/

On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g

Reply #74 –
I agree David, but considering that many might say that about your musical tastes, don't speak too quickly .

Personally I'd prefer to listen to 30's dance groups *anyday* over the typical 2002 dance group, but not everybody would say that .  My tastes lie somewhere in between though... 80's synthpop (the good stuff like Depeche Mode or New Order, not typical MTV pap) is the only stuff I'd really consider for dancing to.  Seems like all of the best 80's groups were either British or German.

Edit -- OK, I confess I'm basically out of touch... I wouldn't know a song by N'Sync from a song by Brittney...