Vivid: Great or snake oil? [Archive] - Audioholics Home Theater Forums

Unregistered

10-21-2004, 02:59 AM

I have tested this product myself. My wife (whose hearing is much better than mine) has tested it as well. In double-blind testing both of us were able to hear significant differences in sound between untreated and treated CDs - and the DVD video discs we treated gave us much cleaner and brighter pictures.
Now, snake oil it may be, but it works for us, for whatever reason. On the eCoustics forum, several people have used it, with equally fine results.
Perhaps Pledge will work just as well (some have suggested it, and a couple of people are at this moment testing it) but I am rather pleasantly surprised at what Vivid has done for my CDs.
I am a retired news reporter, who takes great pains to make sure anything I say is backed up. Can I "prove" to you that it works? Well, probably not without sending you pairs of treated and untreated discs.
You might tune in the forum on eCoustics>Home Audio>Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks - and scroll back a few days to find the on-going debate on Vivid. A man who is notorious for his skeptcism has just received a supply of Vivid, and will be reporting on his testing late this week. It might be of interest to you, who flatly deny that such a product workis.
Please note that I am not trying to sell this product, but I am interested in making listening to music as enjoyable as possible. I have e-mailed Lloyd Walker several times, and have each time received a reasoned response to my questions.
What I hope for is to find some people who have actually put Vivid to the test themselves - and then handed down their personal review of the product. I fully understand why those of you who have been quick to post negative comments would do so, as there have, as you know, been hundreds of useless products foisted upon the naive buying public.
Thank you all for responding - I respect your views, even though they differ from my own testing and listening.

Respecting personal views is not something that is often practiced in this forum, expecially when such views run counter to the technical myopia of so-called pundits here. These people do not understand the impetus of the hobby - achieving personal sonic nirvana and the enjoyment that goes with it. If, as what you say, you and your wife experienced better sonics after using the product you mentioned, then good for you, your enjoyment is all that matters in the pursuits of this hobby.

The people lampooning your claims are better off enjoying their technical books in their laboratories. Not the hobby. You are quite right. They have the gall to quesiton your claim when they don't even bother to own and test them. Just as they would lampoon owners of Wilson Audo and Mark Levinsons when they themselves can't afford one, armed only with a statistical DBT that says $300 receivers sound the same as $10,000 amps. And this cleaning agent doesn't even cost an arm. I wish those cleaning fluids were available where I live. Trying them out and finding for myself if they work is what makes this hobby fun, unpredictable and exciting.

AV_PHILE

Rip Van Woofer

10-21-2004, 11:23 AM

As I have pointed out before, moderators have the same right to express half-baked opinions as anyone else! ;) And we, moderators and members alike, are an opinionated bunch.

When you solicit opinions you have to accept the possibility that they will differ from yours.

Unregistered

10-21-2004, 12:06 PM

Do I understand how CDs work? Yes. And I also understand that bits and pits and planes themselves cannot be changed by OPTICAL enhancements. But at the point of laser-read, all is analog, not digital - and it is my understanding that anything that impedes light path can measurably change the information sent to the ADC unit.
Sorry - but in this case I believe the folks who rely on the Digital Audio handbooks are doing themselves a disfavor.

The laser reads analog? No, you don't have the slightest idea how cd works. Maybe you shouldn't discount engineering text books. The only thing that can seriously degrade the sound of a cd is a large horizontal scratch about 1mm in depth. The player will do its best to correct that but is sometimes unsucessful in that case.

But, hey if you think the stuff works, by all means buy it. Its people like you that keep those companies in business.

BuddTX

10-21-2004, 06:49 PM

I remember reading a long time ago in either Stereo Review or Audio Magazine that . . .

"for some reason" putting Armor All on a CD seemed to make the CD play "louder".

It was a while ago, does anyone else remember this?

mtrycrafts

10-22-2004, 12:30 AM

When I said (probably a little imprecise) that the laser read analog, I meant that the physical properties of the CD are analog - just as the grooves in an LP are analog. You cannot "see" digital - but you can see the physical manifestations of the recorded properties in the pits and planes - that's analog.

Huh? How so?

These are nothing more than blocks, up or down, representation of zero and one. Nothing analog about it. Nothing contiouous about it. Furthermore, these lands and pits are scrambled on the CD in packets, Reed-Soloomon encoding for protection of data. Nothing continuous about it as a vinyl you compare it to.

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=cd.htm&url=http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/CE/kuhn/cdaudio2/95x7.htm

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cd1.htm

Now - to be sure there are many error-correction circuits built into a typical CD player - however, anything that either adds to or detracts from a clear reading of those pits and planes by the laser will add to the work of the CD player, and possibly create a degradation in sound quality.

Absolutely not. If, there are error, the correction protocols will correct them, or if it is gross, extremely rare, it will not read them or interpret them and no signal occurs. There is no inbetween, little bit this and degrades sound. Doesn't happen.

Mold release compound, minute imperfections in the poly disc coating, and yes, scratches - all will have an impact on the laser light's in-and-out pathway.

It will affect its ability to read and track that will show up as a no signal or corrected and pass signal. No in between, a little bit different. Doesn't happen.

Clean a window - you see more clearly.

Laser will most likely pass through?
Clean a compace disc - the laser reads more accurately.

Absolutely false. It read it or it doesn't, period.

So - if Vivid cleans off "scum" and levels out the disc surface it would seem that this will produce a more accurate reading of the disc.

If there is no problem before application, there is nothing to correct. Simple and facts.

This is what Vivid claims - an optical, not digital improvement. You all are quite correct that the digital path is not "enhanced" by this product - but the laser carrier of these pulses can certainly be polluted, with results that degrade the overall sound quality.

Absolute nonsense.

Some of you say you "clean" your CDs - with what? And does that cleaning surely remove the mold release compound,

Why are you so hung up on this mold release compound?
The laser will read it, pass on a signal, or it will not read and you will hear nothing. Simple. No in between.
Soap and water will do just nicely if your CD has tracking problems.

If physical problems did not effect the laser, why then do fingerprints and scratches?

Depends on the magnitude of the defect. Magazines have CD test discs what size of scrathc the player can read. And, some players read bigger scratches than others.

It is all a matter of degree, to my way of thinking.

Yes, and, if it produces sound, you don't have a problem. There is no in between.

Again - think analog, or physical properties, not digital 1s and 0s when contemplating an "enhancement."

Perhaps that is your problem trying to use an invalid thought process.

If you totally disregard my argument, then you must also disregard sound degradation with fingerprints or smudges.

Wrong!!! One doesn't follow the other. It read the smudge, or it doesn't, no in between. A yes, or a no process. Very digital in fact.

mtrycrafts

10-22-2004, 12:43 AM

I have been severely criticized for my viewpoint - and I accept that.

Criticized or just argued and discussed with you about your points and other points?

What confounds me, however, is that NONE of the detractors has used the product. [b]

Why does any thinking person have to? One can analyze the claims and the product, knowing about where it is applied and claimed benefits, it is a silly argument that this must be done.

So, I cannot comment and counter Sylvia Browns, nonsensical psychic reading? I must sit down and have a reading first?

[b]Nor have they produced any valid evidence of why it does not work,

Actually, the burden is on the maker, if he claimed anything that is testable.
Second, it has been explained to you why it doesn't work as claimed, or in any other way. You don't have to accept those explanations. Your perogative.

Subjectivity is a main component of the HiFi hobby -

It is part of it, not the main component. But, these claims are testable in an objective manner and the claimant for the product has no evidence. Simple.

mtrycrafts

10-22-2004, 12:51 AM

I wonder if your student was actually trying the 'tweak' of outlining the edges of the cd with a green marker. Yet another ridiculous idea. There is no way a little ink is going to interfere with a 780nm laser.

The polycarbonate changes the wavelength inside the CD to green wavelength:) because of its property. Besides, Fred Davis did an experiment, published in The Boston Audio Society Speaker, a number of years ago where he fludded and flashed the CD with powerful lasers of the same length to mistrack, ir alter the signals. Nothing happened to the reading of the CD, not affected.
Plus, the way the laser pickup is set up and for the signal ot read zero, a cancellation of the beam must occur that can happen only from a reflection straight back from the surface, not from the sides, AND, it must be exactely the right phase to cancel and interpret that cancellation as a value.
Hence, nothing from the sides can affect the value or the reading. :D

mtrycrafts

10-23-2004, 12:20 AM

Well, it's been a long night. After leaving the forum last night, I went through all of your arguments - and decided to go "back to school" to learn as much as I could about CDs in a too-short amount of time. My schooling continues.

Great. At least we pushed you to expand your horizons:)

In reviewing my comments, it would seem that my arguments regarding laser reading should have been stated this way: "at the point of laser-read, we are dealing with optical, not electronic, properties. It would seem to me that any degradation of the optical path might lead to eventual audio problems - more likely on analog, not digital path, and most having to do with jitter, which I learn is more of a problem than believed by most people.

NO!!!. A degradation must be large enough for the optical path not to detect the data layer. Agan, there is no in between, there is no fractianl quality of reading the pits that will affect the analog output. That is why digital storage is so robust. You need gread problems, not small ones as playing a vinyl.
Jitter? You need to get factual references and information. It is not a problem, contrary to what some self appointed gurus may claim.

Articles by Jon Risch and others have been very informative!

NO!!! That is the last audiophile to listen to. His history is very long on the internet. His BS is vast. His voodoo, urban legends are unparalleled. He has nothign factual to offer except speculations what migh or may be. He has been so discredited that it is not worht the time reading his posts anymore.
Please expand you rhorizons beyong him, for your own sake.

I have e-mailed several electronics experts - but so far have only heard from one - and that on one of your assertions that laser light is transformed into GREEN light in the polycarbonate layer. Not true, says he, then goes on at length about velocity and frequency of light. He promises some written badckup from others - and when he sends them, I'll post links.

Who is he? Polycarbonate has an index of refraction of 1.55 that affects the red beam by that amount which shifts down to the green spectrum.

From this link, a few paras down:) :

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=cd.htm&url=http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/CE/kuhn/cdaudio2/95x7.htm

"Each pit is approximately 0.5 microns wide and 0.83 microns to 3.56 microns long. (Remember that the wavelength of green light is approximately 0.5 micron) Each track is separated from the next track by 1.6 microns. "

Why do you think they want you to remember the wavelength of green light is .5 micron?

Furhter down in that link:

"The polycarbonate itself is part of the optical system for reading the pits. The index of refraction of air is 1.0 while the index of refraction of the polycarbonate is 1.55. Laser light incident on the polycarbonate surface will be refracted at a greater angle into the surface. Thus, the original incident spot of around 800 microns (entering the polycarbonate) will be focused down to about 1.7 microns (at the metal surface). This is a major win, as it minimizes the effects of dust and scratches on the surface. "

Next para:

"The laser used for the CD player is typically an AlGaAs laser diode with a wavelength in air of 780 nm. (Near infrared -- your vision cuts out at about 720 nm). The wavelength inside the polycarbonate is a factor of n=1.55 smaller -- or about 500 nm"

Actually, there are too many relevant paragraphs below this one. Better read the linc carefully. The .5 micron is imprtant as you will see, for interference destruction

Also - here's a quote from a big-time skeptic on the eCoustics forum - who apparently was sent a free sample of Vivid by another forum member, and then used to test the product as well as Pledge.
snipped
His name, by the way, is Jan Vigne, and you can read more of the give-and-take on eCoustics>home theater forum>home audio>teaching an old dog new tricks (thread).

How do we know him other than a poster at that link? Is he a plant?
Did he do a DBT comparison? I seriously doubt it. Ask him!!!
Oh, this glorious waxing about the property of that snake is not evidence for anything.

mtrycrafts

10-23-2004, 12:26 AM

Gentlemen: please refer to the link below for more discussion on lasers becoming "green" in CD polycarbonate.

http://www.audioasylum.com/scripts/t.pl?f=tweaks&m=27724

OK. The wavelength still changes to that of green light, 500nm.
That link has the same source I linked to, apperently:)

It is still that wavelength.
Besides, for the ligth to be affected, if you read the link, the signal has to be perfectly out of phase with the signal going in. This cannot happen with any other signal than th eones that are reflected perfectly up, not coming in from the sides.

mtrycrafts

10-23-2004, 12:29 AM

And then there are these questions - to which I would like to hear answers by all of you who argue so well against my viewpoints.

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/tweaks/messages/27625.html

Nothing to ponder. One only has to look at the source of the information, Joh Risch, the biggest bs grinder on the net. Discredited to the nth degree on most things audio. He is good on room acoustic treatment. Kind or limited.

If you are really interested in learning about digital audio, a great book to read:

"Principles of Digital Audio," Ken C. Pohlmann, McGraw Hill.

The cost is a good expenditure to further ones digital audio knowledge.

Rip Van Woofer

10-23-2004, 12:46 AM

I was going to stay out of this after my last post, but since our poster seems to be honestly desirous of information after all I'll expand on something mtrycrafts pointed out about digital vs. analog:

Unlike analog, the manifestations of digital errors tend to be gross and unmistakable; like clicking, skipping, or really bad distortion. Small, routine errors, like the laser missing an occasional pit due to a piece of dust or the like, are seamlessly and inaudibly handled by built-in error correction algorithms. The kinds of comparatively subtle enhancements or degradations audiophiles listen for and judge quality by are purely analog phenomena, characteristic of analog components like amps and speakers (and vinyl for that matter). If they were to happen anywhere in a CDP it woudn't be at the laser pickup; it would be at the digital-to-analog conversion (DAC) stage. But contrary to myth those are all pretty much transparent these days.

It's just like your computer. Small digital errors happen all the time but your screen still looks the same: colors don't get more or less vivid, text doesn't get fuzzy, and everything works as you are accustomed. Until the data gets truly corrupted. Then you get gross errors like major slowdowns and crashes.

JoeE SP9

10-23-2004, 02:10 AM

Rob Babcock

10-23-2004, 04:33 AM

Vivid? Man, they make some great movies. Most of the best actresses work for them you know.

Mudcat

10-23-2004, 02:17 PM

Vivid? Man, they make some great movies. Most of the best actresses work for them you know.

I was waiting for this. :D

J Risch

10-23-2004, 02:22 PM

Articles by Jon Risch and others have been very informative!

NO!!! That is the last audiophile to listen to. His history is very long on the internet. His BS is vast. His voodoo, urban legends are unparalleled. He has nothign factual to offer except speculations what migh or may be. He has been so discredited that it is not worht the time reading his posts anymore.
Please expand you rhorizons beyong him, for your own sake.

I find it ironic to the extreme, that you are now acting as if you are the knowledgable person, and I am to be ignored.

I remember when you first started posting replies to me years ago, all you had were a handful of white papers to cite and quote from, and little or no understanding of what they meant, or the true implications of their contents.
I had real world experience of the subject, formal training (or my own research and readings), I had actually listened to all of the things under discussion, in many cases using controlled listening tests. I had performed measurements, run experiments, performed analysis of said measurements and listening tests.
As a practicing engineer and longstanding member of the Audio Engineerig Society, with three US patents to my name, three AES papers presented, several magazine articles published, a list of audio design credits a mile long, I have the benefit of over 25 years of professional experience in the audio field.

However, one thing is still the same, despite your having picked up some of the jargon and buzzwords over the years, you still depend on the work of others, rather than actually trying any of this for yourself. It is all still strictly in the realm of theory and what you call science. You are not an EE, you do not have any first hand experience with engineering or audio design, you do not even claim to have any specific audio equipment, nor have you ever revealed what sort of audio system, if any, you own.

As with all things, the application of a particular discipline depends on the depth and breadth of one's knowledge of that discipline, and while someone who is well versed in a discipline can speak with some authority with regard to the science and theory, it still doesn't replace one minute iota of actual experimentation or first hand experience (such as listening).

You say I have been discredited. One could easily say the same about you, it would depend on who was asked.
I can say with some certainty that the few people that you might be able to get to back up your statement by agreeing with it, would be folks who have argued bitterly with me in the past over audio cable sonics. This is widely recognized to be a very contentious topic, one which even ordinarily reasonable people get very hot and excited about, with lots of name calling and flaming. It is not too surprising that someone who I had argued with over this topic would be willing to state that they thought I was full of BS.

However, that would not make it true, nor does it provide ANY sort of evidence for the statement that I have been discredited.

For someone who prides himself on the application of logic to an argument, I find your logic on this subject quite flawed. Even if one were to accept someone else's opinion regarding my stance on audio cables, that I was incorrect in my theories, speculations, or arguments regarding audio cables, this does not automatically mean that all of the other subjects I post on would also be wrong or without merit.

My posts and information on room treatment acoustics are highly regarded from all sides, including the more honest cable naysayers. My posts and information on various other aspects of audio playback projects, such as balanced power, iolation transformers, AC Line Filters, etc., is also highly regarded. My DIY AC Line Filter has been one of the most popular projects used for the purpose it was designed for. It is also very highly regarded, and has NOT ONE word of denigration posted for it.

All in all, my posts and information, have been very well received by the vast overwhelming majority of the folks who have read it, tried it, and then posted positively about it.
The ONLY negative comments one will find on the internet about me are ALL strictly related to audio cable sonics. I think that the most telling part of that, is that of the folks who have actually taken the time and trouble to build one of my DIY audio cable designs, virtually ALL of them have had a positive experience, and posted their thanks and praise of the designs.

The only people likely to state that they think I am peddling BS are the ones who STRICTLY ON THEORY, say that my stance on audio cable sonics is wrong. I note that NO ONE has ever provided the same kind and level of proof that they demand from others, to show that any of my theories or my listening tests are somehown wrong, incorrect or BS. Many claim to hae done so, including mtry, but when pressed to provide that evidence, it is never forthcoming, or a complete red herring is cited as a distraction.

On the other hand, as I said earlier, there are quite a few people that would be quite willing to say that mtrycrafts does not know what he is talking about on any subject audio related.
It is a fact that he has been ignored and dismissed by a great many folks once they find out that he is speaking STRICTLY from theory, and not any personal experiences.

One side comment, relevant to this thread. While digital audio is mostly concerned about the transfer and processing of digital data bits, it is NOT completely immune to problems because of this. Jitter can rear it's head and cause the sound to become less than pure.

I talk about this at:
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/jitter.html
where I provide over 33 citations to back up what I talk about.
It is NOT just about getting the ones and zeros there intact, it is about the TIMING of doing so, and how clean this is, and how clean it stays.

Jon Risch

J Risch

10-23-2004, 02:47 PM

To all of you who have put in your "2 cents" on the subject at hand - thank you. I am a bit shocked at your criticisms of Jon Risch, though, for I thought him to be a reasoned individual. Guess it's all in how you read and interpret things? Plus, you obviously have much greater knowledge of him than I do, so I must put some stock in that.

Indeed, many folks think that I am a reasoned and knowledgable individual, and with good reason.

However, I have been a vocal defender of the existence of sonic differences between audio cables, based on a combination of physics theory, listening tests, and years of first hand experience.
In arguing with folks on the internet about cables, I have been vilified by some, as being not only wrong, but full of BS and I have been accused of promoting bad science, etc. I am sure that some of those folks would tend to agree with mtrycrafts, and say that I am full of BS, but that would not necessarily be logic and reason talking, but rather, the result of heated and intense debate over an admittedly controversial topic.

My own investigations into audio cable sonics culminated in my development of some DIY audio cable designs that are very highly regarded by those who have built them. I offer these DIY designs for free, and do not sell or make cables for others. My DIY cable designs are so well regarded, that several of them have been selected by web entrepreneurs to offer as assembled product for sale.
Note that I do not get any compensation or money from any of these folks, I presented a public domain design and they went with it. Several of these have been reviewed in the audio press, some of which are online, and they invariably are called giant-killer cables by the reviewer's. I think that this provides some back-up for the results of my listening tests, and my design priorities.

As for my credentials, I cover some of that in my posted reply to mtrycrafts, see:
http://www.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=29480&mode=linear#post29480

As for mtrycrafts, he is not that well regarded on some other message boards, and has been dismissed by many people once they realize that he is not speaking from actual experience, but rather, ONLY from a theory standpoint. So for him to say I have been discredited, when he is in the same boat for other boards, and other folks, is kind of funny.

I guess he thought I would not see this, and that he would be able to get away with his unfounded claims and statements.

Jon Risch

Mudcat

10-23-2004, 03:00 PM

nor have you ever revealed what sort of audio system, if any, you own.

He says he has a boombox and a stereo in his car. :D

Rob Babcock

10-23-2004, 06:35 PM

I was waiting for this. :D

You can always count on me to throw in a porn comment!:p

WmAx

10-23-2004, 06:56 PM

As a practicing engineer and longstanding member of the Audio Engineerig Society, with three US patents to my name, three AES papers presented, several magazine articles published, a list of audio design credits a mile long, I have the benefit of over 25 years of professional experience in the audio field.

What is the purpose of this statement? Are you suggesting credentials are a sufficient substitute for proofs? Just wondering -- I did not immediately think of another reason for you to make this statement unless you just like to toot your own horn.

As I'm sure everyone is aware; experience itself does not make one's opinions correct. The value of experience is greatly variable between individuals.

As for the implication that owning a patent is in some way definitive or of value: patents can be obtained for just about anything if one has the filing fee and proper legal assistance. Their is no shortage of useless patents. If you are referring to the US patent office in particular, they allow patenting of such things as how to swing a swing:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=*&l=50&s1='6,368,227'.WKU.&OS=PN/6,368,227&RS=PN/6,368,227

AES paper submissions that are at preprint status and reading them to a conference do not require scientific proof or strict protocols beforehand. Only some AES papers are valuable and an individual analysis of each paper is required in order to assess it's actual worth.

You are not an EE, you do not have any first hand experience with engineering or audio design, you do not even claim to have any specific audio equipment, nor have you ever revealed what sort of audio system, if any, you own.

Who cares if mtrycraft is an EE? Who cares if YOU are an EE? EE or no EE still requires burden of proof on unsubstaniated positive claims. This sounds(too me) like a straw man argument -- or even worse; actually believing that credentials or experience automaticly make someone's word 'gold' no matter what they assert -- just because they have a degree in that field. Maybe I'm off base on this assumption; it's just the way I picked up on your tone.

All in all, my posts and information, have been very well received by the vast overwhelming majority of the folks who have read it, tried it, and then posted positively about it.
The ONLY negative comments one will find on the internet about me are ALL strictly related to audio cable sonics. I think that the most telling part of that, is that of the folks who have actually taken the time and trouble to build one of my DIY audio cable designs, virtually ALL of them have had a positive experience, and posted their thanks and praise of the designs.

Unfortunately, the number of people who priase or like something is only useful to judge popularity, not correctness. Or was the Earth really flat when most people on the Earth believed it to be so?

-Chris

WmAx

10-23-2004, 07:05 PM

Vivid? Man, they make some great movies. Most of the best actresses work for them you know.

I personally prefer the lower budget movies in this genre. The flaws/imperfections in the actresses and productions with the seemingly less 'glam' type studios then Vivid give it a more 'realistic' edge in my opinion.

-Chris

Mudcat

10-23-2004, 07:23 PM

Now, Mudcat comes to defense - and all is a-bristle.

Time out here. All I said was:

He says he has a boombox and a stereo in his car. :D

If you think my comment is coming to mtrycrafts defense, no wonder you're buying these potions developed by Prof Snape.

If I were to engage in a discussion about Brussels sprouts, say, and told you that they taste terrible - the FIRST question you would ask is:

You actually ate these? You're a better man than I Gunga Din. Personally, I hate Brussel Sprouts, and would totally agree with you.

I continue my quest to try and understand why my CDs don't sound great - and my quest to try to determine whether Vivid can be tested, and the results shown to me. Perhaps Mr. Risch can shed some light on this? If so, I would appreciate it, sir, as I am tired of being argued against by people who refuse to use the product so that they "might" hear what I hear - and instead only label the product "snake oil."

Tell you what, you want really clean CDs? Mix 1/2 cup of Skippy smooth peanut butter with the yolks of two hard boiled eggs and 1/2 cup of hydrogen peroxide. Microwave it on high for 3 minutes. Better do it in a pyrex bowl because it makes a rather stable solution of Sulfuric acid.

mtrycrafts

10-23-2004, 07:27 PM

If you think my comment is coming to mtrycrafts defense, no wonder you're buying these potions developed by Prof Snape.

You may quote me as having 2 boomoxes :)

mtrycrafts

10-23-2004, 07:30 PM

I find it ironic to the extreme, that you are now acting as if you are the knowledgable person, and I am to be ignored.

I remember when you first started posting replies to me years ago, all you had were a handful of white papers to cite and quote from, and little or no understanding of what they meant, or the true implications of their contents.
I had real world experience of the subject, formal training (or my own research and readings), I had actually listened to all of the things under discussion, in many cases using controlled listening tests. I had performed measurements, run experiments, performed analysis of said measurements and listening tests.
As a practicing engineer and longstanding member of the Audio Engineerig Society, with three US patents to my name, three AES papers presented, several magazine articles published, a list of audio design credits a mile long, I have the benefit of over 25 years of professional experience in the audio field.

However, one thing is still the same, despite your having picked up some of the jargon and buzzwords over the years, you still depend on the work of others, rather than actually trying any of this for yourself. It is all still strictly in the realm of theory and what you call science. You are not an EE, you do not have any first hand experience with engineering or audio design, you do not even claim to have any specific audio equipment, nor have you ever revealed what sort of audio system, if any, you own.

As with all things, the application of a particular discipline depends on the depth and breadth of one's knowledge of that discipline, and while someone who is well versed in a discipline can speak with some authority with regard to the science and theory, it still doesn't replace one minute iota of actual experimentation or first hand experience (such as listening).

You say I have been discredited. One could easily say the same about you, it would depend on who was asked.
I can say with some certainty that the few people that you might be able to get to back up your statement by agreeing with it, would be folks who have argued bitterly with me in the past over audio cable sonics. This is widely recognized to be a very contentious topic, one which even ordinarily reasonable people get very hot and excited about, with lots of name calling and flaming. It is not too surprising that someone who I had argued with over this topic would be willing to state that they thought I was full of BS.

However, that would not make it true, nor does it provide ANY sort of evidence for the statement that I have been discredited.

For someone who prides himself on the application of logic to an argument, I find your logic on this subject quite flawed. Even if one were to accept someone else's opinion regarding my stance on audio cables, that I was incorrect in my theories, speculations, or arguments regarding audio cables, this does not automatically mean that all of the other subjects I post on would also be wrong or without merit.

My posts and information on room treatment acoustics are highly regarded from all sides, including the more honest cable naysayers. My posts and information on various other aspects of audio playback projects, such as balanced power, iolation transformers, AC Line Filters, etc., is also highly regarded. My DIY AC Line Filter has been one of the most popular projects used for the purpose it was designed for. It is also very highly regarded, and has NOT ONE word of denigration posted for it.

All in all, my posts and information, have been very well received by the vast overwhelming majority of the folks who have read it, tried it, and then posted positively about it.
The ONLY negative comments one will find on the internet about me are ALL strictly related to audio cable sonics. I think that the most telling part of that, is that of the folks who have actually taken the time and trouble to build one of my DIY audio cable designs, virtually ALL of them have had a positive experience, and posted their thanks and praise of the designs.

The only people likely to state that they think I am peddling BS are the ones who STRICTLY ON THEORY, say that my stance on audio cable sonics is wrong. I note that NO ONE has ever provided the same kind and level of proof that they demand from others, to show that any of my theories or my listening tests are somehown wrong, incorrect or BS. Many claim to hae done so, including mtry, but when pressed to provide that evidence, it is never forthcoming, or a complete red herring is cited as a distraction.

On the other hand, as I said earlier, there are quite a few people that would be quite willing to say that mtrycrafts does not know what he is talking about on any subject audio related.
It is a fact that he has been ignored and dismissed by a great many folks once they find out that he is speaking STRICTLY from theory, and not any personal experiences.

One side comment, relevant to this thread. While digital audio is mostly concerned about the transfer and processing of digital data bits, it is NOT completely immune to problems because of this. Jitter can rear it's head and cause the sound to become less than pure.

I talk about this at:
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/jitter.html
where I provide over 33 citations to back up what I talk about.
It is NOT just about getting the ones and zeros there intact, it is about the TIMING of doing so, and how clean this is, and how clean it stays.

Jon Risch

Look what the cat dragged in.

Jon, we go back a long time on the net. I have seen your bs, your voodoo and being discredited on the net.
You have nothing but snake oil, maybee, perhaps nonsense to offer to the gullible ones.

mtrycrafts

10-23-2004, 07:34 PM

. Sigh. I continue my quest to try and understand why my CDs don't sound great - and my quest to try to determine whether Vivid can be tested, and the results shown to me. Perhaps Mr. Risch can shed some light on this? If so, I would appreciate it, sir, as I am tired of being argued against by people who refuse to use the product so that they "might" hear what I hear - and instead only label the product "snake oil."
.

He can expalin it till the cows come home. Meaningless. He is the nets#1 golden ear with no data to show for anything. Maybes, perhaps, should be is worthelss. Just because he has that EE is also doesn't give him immunity from peddling bs, voodoo, hype, mythology.

But, you are welcome to accept whomever as giving you the facts. He has very few of them.

mtrycrafts

10-23-2004, 07:36 PM

He says he has a boombox and a stereo in his car. :D
As that has anything to do with the price of tea in China, or, anything to do with the claims others make about audio. Most interesting this is all they can gripe about endlessly.
I have 2 boomboxes:)

mtrycrafts

10-23-2004, 09:17 PM

He wanted a "classless" society - youze guyz are living examples of what he wanted - "classless."

How so? These discussions have nothing to do with class. Why not try to direct your questions away from testable claims and see if we care which component you buy or how expensive it is as long as you like it or prefer it.
However, you should have gathered from reading the posts that we question what is claimed, if the claim can be tested. A preference is not testable.

mtrycrafts

10-23-2004, 09:31 PM

What is the purpose of this statement? Are you suggesting credentials are a sufficient substitute for proofs? Just wondering -- I did not immediately think of another reason for you to make this statement unless you just like to toot your own horn.

He wants immunity from being challenged or questioned:)

As I'm sure everyone is aware; experience itself does not make one's opinions correct. The value of experience is greatly variable between individuals.

I had a 20+ year experienced plumber who even taught it in school come out on a water heater problem. It went down hill from the first word out of his mouth that a blanket around the heater wiil corrode the tank due to moisture buildup and fail prematurely. I should have sent him back there and then instead of wasting an hour. I should have talked to the walls. :D

As for the implication that owning a patent is in some way definitive or of value:

He has touted it from day one :rolleyes:
One only has to check what they are for ;)

Who cares if mtrycraft is an EE? Who cares if YOU are an EE? EE or no EE still requires burden of proof on unsubstaniated positive claims.

He just cannot stand being questioned, challenged :eek:

Just a sample; much more where that came from :D

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+wire+OR+cable+OR+ABX+%22risch%22+-piano+-bug+-algorithm&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=736ub5%24*3h%40news01.aud.alcatel.com&rnum=11

Unfortunately, the number of people who priase or like something is only useful to judge popularity, not correctness. Or was the Earth really flat when most people on the Earth believed it to be so? -Chris

One only has to see how many praise Sylvia Brown, John Edwards et al, or homeopathic medicines, holistic healing, alien abductions and on it gos. That is all he has to offer, number of testimonials, like an infomercial :D

mtrycrafts

10-23-2004, 11:36 PM

The point being - again - I (and a half-dozen friends) have heard what we term "marked" improvements in sound and picture quality when using Vivid.

An unreliable observation. Your biases are get in your way of the real facts that is testable, under DBT conditions. No, it will not cause such huge differences that a DBT is not warranted. Exactely the opposit. There is no science to support any change, let alone a huge one. And, a DBT would result in a 100% correct responses if it hadf such huge mytical powers and you have nothing to fear from a DBT.

You say preferences cannot be tested? Why not?

How can you test what you like? I like chocolate. How can you test that? By giving me vanilla? WRONG. I still like chocolate.

Why not get some Vivid and use it for yourself

Why would I waste my time, assuming it is free sample?
There is zero evidence that it makes a difference.

You dodge and dodge, sir(s) but your minds are obviously closed.

Actually, the closed mind is in your court. You will not entertain the idea that it is snake oil claim and are not willing to a
DBT tetst? Why are you scared? Afraid to not tell a difference? You don't trust your ears alone, must use your eyes to know when it is used? Like an open book test in class?

Name-calling

What name calling?

I think my statement stands for itself.

Which one?

J Risch

10-24-2004, 03:59 AM

What is the purpose of this statement? Are you suggesting credentials are a sufficient substitute for proofs? Just wondering -- I did not immediately think of another reason for you to make this statement unless you just like to toot your own horn.

As I'm sure everyone is aware; experience itself does not make one's opinions correct. The value of experience is greatly variable between individuals.

As for the implication that owning a patent is in some way definitive or of value: patents can be obtained for just about anything if one has the filing fee and proper legal assistance. Their is no shortage of useless patents. If you are referring to the US patent office in particular, they allow patenting of such things as how to swing a swing:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=*&l=50&s1='6,368,227'.WKU.&OS=PN/6,368,227&RS=PN/6,368,227

AES paper submissions that are at preprint status and reading them to a conference do not require scientific proof or strict protocols beforehand. Only some AES papers are valuable and an individual analysis of each paper is required in order to assess it's actual worth.

Who cares if mtrycraft is an EE? Who cares if YOU are an EE? EE or no EE still requires burden of proof on unsubstaniated positive claims. This sounds(too me) like a straw man argument -- or even worse; actually believing that credentials or experience automaticly make someone's word 'gold' no matter what they assert -- just because they have a degree in that field. Maybe I'm off base on this assumption; it's just the way I picked up on your tone.

Unfortunately, the number of people who priase or like something is only useful to judge popularity, not correctness. Or was the Earth really flat when most people on the Earth believed it to be so?

-Chris

I was merely establishing that I am not some bumpkin who wandered in off the street, that I have a great deal of experience with audio engineering matters, and that mtrycrafts is not operating from the same knowledge base that I am. In the past, he has tried to claim that I am not an engineer, that I do not work in audio, and so on, in a feeble attempt to dismiss my points and arguments.

I think that all of this is relevant for folks reading these threads to decide who they will believe, and who they will take with a grain of salt.

I do believe that mtrycrafts was the one who first made several claims with regard to me, most specifically, that I have been "discredited" on the internet. This is a complete and utter falsehood, as I have tried to show.

Rather than provide any sort of logical arguments regarding what I posted, and that Dessayfan cited, he initially (and subsequently) used an ad homenium argument, and attacked the person, not the ideas. Again, for someone who claims to be utterly logical and scientific, I think that it is strange to say the least, that his only rebuttal, and his only recourse, was to slam me personally, and falsely.

I merely pointed out that, not only could similar claims be made regarding his credibility, but that there are other internet sites where he is not that well regarded. Folks here may not be aware of this, just as they may not be aware that his statements are far from the impartial and impersonal opinions that he may be trying to portray them as.

If he wishes to discuss the content of the post that Dessayfan cited, then I will try to respond as time permits, but until then, I see no further point in responding to unsubstantiated statements and lame personal put-downs by mtrycrafts.

Jon Risch

Rip Van Woofer

10-24-2004, 10:14 AM

Since this discussion has become, uh, heated, I have moved it to the appropriate forum.

Unregistered

10-24-2004, 01:58 PM

mtrycrafts

10-24-2004, 04:38 PM

mtrycrafts

10-24-2004, 04:51 PM

You keep talking about DBTs - well, perhaps you skipped over the posting where I said that I had done a DBT - with CD-Rs marked on the playing side only, shuffled, then tested - rated - shuffled - same thing three times each with two separate musical selections. IN each case, I (and my wife) were able to pick out the Vivid-treated disc. If that's not a DBT, I don't know what one is.
Second - I believe that you are wrong when you say that laser light going thru polycarb is changed to green. No - the speed of the light is changed by refraction, but the single-frequency laser light goes through and comes out or is reflected at the same frequency - same color. Try it yourself - take a laser pointer (admittedly 650nm instead of 780) shine it around the CD and see how the light scatters. Then lightly sand the outer edges - and, using a CD-R or trashy commercial CD, lightly sand a bit of the top and bottom layers, sanding off part of the aluminum substrate. Now shine the laser around, and the sanded parts will "glow" - what color? Green? Nope - red. Try this yourself - don't bank on somebody else's claims. IF that laser light had been turned to green, as you claim, you would see GREEN light bouncing off or shining through the polycarb layer. I'm still waiting for a man I consider an expert to give me permission to put on an open forum his e-mail to me saying basically that the laser light is NOT turned green inside the polycarb. I'll give name and post a link, etc., when he gives me permission.

I remember your DBT experiments. There could be many explanations why you think you identified as you did. Maybe the copy is not numerically identical. Certainly your protocol is wanting.

Maybe an email to Prof Kelin J. Kuhn will straighten out the green light he interjected in his explanations:

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=cd.htm&url=http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/CE/kuhn/cdaudio2/95x7.htm
Each pit is approximately 0.5 microns wide and 0.83 microns to 3.56 microns long. (Remember that the wavelength of green light is approximately 0.5 micron) Each track is separated from the next track by 1.6 microns.

Maybe he just used that to indicate the 500 nm spacings and the wavelength that the red laser becomes inside the polycarbonate is the same as the wavelength of green light. But then, I am not on the inside of the poly, am I. When the beam comes out, is back to the original wavelength. Perhaps, as was mentione elsewhere the wavelength changes but no the frequency, similar to the wavelength of 20kHz in the wire and in the air.

mtrycrafts

10-24-2004, 04:55 PM

mtrycrafts remark about changing the light to green was JOKE, no doubt meant to have as much validity of the claims for Vivid.

Just what do you think is going to happen over time to the protective layer of the cd when you spray it with that junk? I hope the cds you treated aren't ones you really enjoy or are hard to find, because there is a real possibility that they won't last after treatment with Vivid (even more chance for the ones you sprayed furniture polish on).

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=cd.htm&url=http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/CE/kuhn/cdaudio2/95x7.htm
Each pit is approximately 0.5 microns wide and 0.83 microns to 3.56 microns long. (Remember that the wavelength of green light is approximately 0.5 micron) Each track is separated from the next track by 1.6 microns.

He refers to it elsewhere on the page too.
Maybe Professor Kuhn had a different reason to interject the green light in his explanation? Maybe just a reference to green light, that the wavelength of the lase is in the polycarbonate being the same as green light.

J Risch

10-24-2004, 06:39 PM

I was merely establishing that I am not some bumpkin who wandered in off the street, that I have a great deal of experience with audio engineering matters, and that mtrycrafts is not operating from the same knowledge base that I am. In the past, he has tried to claim that I am not an engineer, that I do not work in audio, and so on, in a feeble attempt to dismiss my points and arguments.

However, I take exception to your libelous insinuation about what you are trying to accuse me of doing. It is a total LIE on your part. Get your facts togeter or else. An apology is in order and I demand it promptly.
But what can one expect from such a person as you?

mtry, I have a very good memory. I recall quite clearly when you tried to claim I was not an engineer, this was back on what I call the Audio Review version2 and 3 boards (we are now on AR version 4, the first time I started posting there, and the first time mtry posted replies to me there was version 1).

At one point, you also tried to say that I was not in the field of audio, that I was a janitor, or some such dimissive kind of claim. At another point, you claimed I was a plastics technician, and another time that I was a mere draftsman. I recall the times you posted some such attempt to denigrate me there. Since AR was a portion of that 'internet' that you claim I was "discredited" on, I feel those posts are quite relevant to your latest claim. They show the level of your integrity and honesty.

Actually, I think that it is you who owe me an apology, certainly not the other way around.

Check the link. Others are in the archives. You can run but you cannot hide.

Your link is a dead end, it does not display.

But I have a pretty good idea what it is probably to, either one of those posts at AR where an anti-cable guy made some more unsubstatiated claims about me, or a link to one of the newsgroups, where I argued with various folks about audio cable sonics.
There I tangled with Arny Krueger, one of the most notorious folks ever to post to rec.audio.YOU NAME IT

The man has literally tens of thousands of posts to his name in various news groups, and I do believe has made it a point to argue with every person who has ever posted about audio cable sonics. That includes me.

For the record, Arny has outright lied about me, twisted my words, made false claims on my behalf, and on and on. If this is your big source of being discredited, then I can only say to any readers, that if you have the stomach for it, read the whole thread, not just one post from Arny or one of his fellow naysayers. In fact, it is considered in some circles to be a badge of honor to be dissed by Arny, it means you are OK.

BTW, I am sure that I could easily find several posts by others who said some not very kind things about you mtry, but really, what would that prove? About the same thing as your post.

Jon Risch

Rob Babcock

10-24-2004, 07:05 PM

I personally prefer the lower budget movies in this genre. The flaws/imperfections in the actresses and productions with the seemingly less 'glam' type studios then Vivid give it a more 'realistic' edge in my opinion.

-Chris

Vivid is pretty much the Disney of pornography. You do get a more homogenized and mainstream product from them, but then you're rarely surprised or disappointed. Certainly no midgets or barnyard animals!:p

Certainly the 'net has changed the landscape a lot, and of course no one mainstream studio can corner the market on "talent" nowadays.

mtrycrafts

10-24-2004, 08:49 PM

Indeed, many folks think that I am a reasoned and knowledgable individual, and with good reason.

And many think otherwise. Cannot hide from history and internet archives, Jon.

However, I have been a vocal defender of the existence of sonic differences between audio cables, based on a combination of physics theory, listening tests, and years of first hand experience.

Yes, you have. But, you have yet to show anything audible, any theory that supports audibility between comparable cables let alone in physics, your listening tests are just unreliable claims. You have yet to demonstrate your claims for audibility. How many years has it been? Manmy opportunities you walked away from, remember? No, it is not something to remember, I forgot. First hand experience is overblown if it has no real meaning and is unreliable.

In arguing with folks on the internet about cables, I have been vilified by some, as being not only wrong, but full of BS and I have been accused of promoting bad science, etc.

Of course you are an angel when it comes to science. LOL

My own investigations into audio cable sonics culminated in my development of some DIY audio cable designs that are very highly regarded by those who have built them.

Ah, the gullible falling for the hype. John Edwards and sylvia Brown, et al, are highly regarded by many. So what.

I offer these DIY designs for free, and do not sell or make cables for others.

Good for you. They do work; so does the 12 ga from Home Depot.

My DIY cable designs are so well regarded, that several of them have been selected by web entrepreneurs to offer as assembled product for sale.

So? A product hyped for years comes to the marketplace. How is that any different from anything in the consumer land?

Several of these have been reviewed in the audio press, some of which are online, and they invariably are called giant-killer cables by the reviewer's. I think that this provides some back-up for the results of my listening tests, and my design priorities.

Backup? LOL. It is meaningless. Those reviews are more of the same bs in magazines, unreliable sonics based on unreliable listeing protocol. The outcome is unreliable as well. Zero, meaningless.

As for mtrycrafts, he is not that well regarded on some other message boards,

Of course not, Jon. What a surprize. I dare to challenge your bs, mythology, voodoo, and everyone elses.
You think you are well regarded on every message board? LOL.

and has been dismissed by many people

Ah, just look in the mirror, from time to time, Jon.

I guess he thought I would not see this, and that he would be able to get away with his unfounded claims and statements.
Jon Risch

Yep, you are guessing as usual. What a surprize, not.

mtrycrafts

10-24-2004, 08:53 PM

.

But, hey if you think the stuff works, by all means buy it. Its people like you that keep those companies in business.

Every bit helps the economy :D Boy we need every business today ;)

mtrycrafts

10-24-2004, 08:58 PM

Actually, I think that it is you who owe me an apology, certainly not the other way around.

Jon Risch

You memory was affected in your car crash, obviously.
It is you who owe the apology, NOW.

The link works just fine. It is one of a huge pile there or you rmemory is totally gone? Rememer RAHE? Rahe arcives remembers you.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+wire+OR+cable+OR+ABX+%22risch%22+-piano+-bug+-algorithm&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=736ub5%24*3h%40news01.aud.alcatel.com&rnum=11

It works for me. The link must be too long?

Here ya go, JON

Search Result 11
From: Richard D Pierce (DPierce@world.std.com)
Subject: Re: Expensive speaker wire is marketing hype?
View: Complete Thread (86 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Date: 1998/11/21

In article <736nen$bhl@news01.aud.alcatel.com>,
Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>"Jon M. Risch" <jrisch@cybertron.com> writes:
>>As a side note, I have recently measured definite levels of cable
>>distortion due to the presence of steel objects in close proximity to
>>the speaker cable.

Would Mr. Risch care to reveal exactly what "definite" levels of
distorion he measured? Would he care to provide, since he measured
these phenomenon" the levels, type and composition of these
distortion products and the conditions of measurement?

>Aha! That would explain why electrostatic speakers sound so much
>better than electromagnetic speakers: electromagnetic speakers cause
>distortion due to their effects on the cable.

No, it would not. There are PLENTY of reasons, well understood and
fully explained elsewhere, why there are enormous differences between
electrostatic and electrodynamic speakers. For example, the simple
difference in what becomes of the rear radiation from both accounts
for HUGE differences in both the measured and perceived differences
of the two, the presence of the cabinet in one case and the absence
in the other has a profound effect. The enormous differences in
radiation patterns due to the relative sizes of the radiating areas
is also to be acounted for.

And then your assumption falls flat on its face: you completely
failed to account for the fact that sitting between nearly EVERY
electrostatic speaker and the anmplifier is a matching transformer,
filled with a whole bunch of guess what? Steel. And that steel is not
like what Mr. Risch is talking about: it's not "in close proximity to
the speaker wires," it is an integral, tightly coupled part of the
entire system.

If your theory that the steel in the electrodynamic speaker causes
audible problems, why does not the more integral steel of the
coupling transformer directly in the signal path, and the steel in
the power supply transformer cause similar problems? If your
assertion that it is the steel in the transformers that accounts for
the differences between electrodynamic and electrostatic speakers,
how do you reconcile that with the fact that the total mass of steel
in those transformers probably outweighsthe steel in the magnet of
the normal speaker drivers?

You have made a claim, that it is the steel in normal electrodynamic
speakers that accounts for the difference between them and
electrostatics, ignoring the already well-characterized difference
that exist due to radiation, room loading, cabinet interation and
MUCH more. You ignore the fact that there's a huge piece of steel
that's an integral part of the electrostatic speaker itself.

>I hope this effect only happens with steel: my amplifier is in an
>aluminium box and the large mains transformer inside contains lots of
>iron. And I hate to think of the distortion the huge magnet on my
>woofer would cause if that were the case!

What about the distortion caused by the simple non-linearities in the
mechnical suspension? What about the steel mails in the floor and the
walls where the cables run?

Over and above your specific theory, Mr. Risch has made a claim, and
he has made a fully testable claim. We would all be interested to see
precisely what he measured as "distrtion (as he has claimed to) and
to see his specific measurement conditions so that others can see if
his results are repeatable.

Otherwise, many of us remain unconvinced without the substantiation
that such claims require.

--
| **** Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4963 Voice and FAX |
| DPierce@world.std.com

Rip Van Woofer

10-24-2004, 09:19 PM

Hmmm...maybe Rob should start a thread about Vivid (the "adult entertainment" company) over in the Movies, DVD and Theatricks forum.

Clint DeBoer

10-24-2004, 10:03 PM

no pics, please.

Rob Babcock

10-24-2004, 10:14 PM

I'll forgo the Vivid/porn related pics if Rip promises no Cialis related pics! :D

Dessayfan

10-25-2004, 10:37 AM

Gentlemen - this thread has done several things for me - it has broadened my knowledge of CDs, players and circuits - and I have tried very hard to faithfully follow your links and advice on further reading, which I have done, often spending full nights trying to decipher scientific language. It has let me know that I have not business trying to argue DBTs and other tests, for you obviously slap me down pretty good whenever I try. It has shown me that many of my friends were right when they castigated me for coming on the Audioholics forum, which they say is "full of bullying, opinionated, closed-minded" people.
In the end, all I am interested in is the music. Not ohms and test equipment. Music. And how it sounds "to me." Not to you, for you most likely hear differently than I do - this is a norm.
So - in closing (for good, I'm gone) may I just say that my wife and I have tested "to our satisfaction" the Vivid CD product and have found "to our satisfaction" that it makes most pleasurable improvements in the sound of CDs "as we hear it."
That, gentlemen, is what this "hobby" is all about for me - music, not wires and knobs. When I started with a question I was hoping to hear from fellow Vivid-tryers - to see if they agreed or disagreed with me on what to me are its merits. I have not heard from any users, so I have failed in my quest.
I have, however, learned the hard way not to discuss a producct with anyone who has neither used it nor believes that a test is even warranted.
I now go back to my CDs and SACDs - secure in my belief that I have chosen a product that makes my life more enjoyable. In this insane world, "enjoyable" is good, whether or not other people agree with my belief.
Thank you all for information, frustration, etc. I shall not return, but shall confine my questions and comments to the eCoustics forum, which I find much more reasonable and "user-friendly." Good-bye.

Mudcat

10-25-2004, 11:08 AM

...... It has shown me that many of my friends were right when they castigated me for coming on the Audioholics forum, which they say is "full of bullying, opinionated, closed-minded" people.

Bullying - Yeah some of us are.
Opinionated - Most definitely
Close-minded - You've got to be kidding me. If there is one thing you should have learned here is that we are the most open-minded around. We will entertain any idea if there is acceptable merit in the idea. If you want close mindedness, visit other audiophile forums and check out their phobias on scientific testing. Most will not even want you around unless you basically agree that if you can't hear it you are deaf.

FallenAngel

10-25-2004, 02:21 PM

Gentlemen: live and let live, please. IMO this thread has become more show-off than constructive forum discussion.

Some guys who can afford a 20000 $ system would buy Vivid just in case it works. Blokes like me on the other hand maybe choose between Vivid and a pair of cables :D . Being a layman, I appreciate very much these forums for putting me in contact with people with audiophile experience and/or research background. It helps me pick the right stuff in my humble investments.

But is it too much to expect a dialogue? The expert's contribution is the answers and mine is the questions. Some you maybe answered a zillion times before. But maybe occasionally one of them could inspire us to plunge into something interesting.

IMO that should have applied to the idea of analogue aspects of CD lecture. Instead of replicating information on missing bits, maybe we could have expanded the debate. Would error correction fail in cases where a "0" is mistaken for a "1"? Could semi-transparent pressing remains cause this? (I don't know - I'm the layman, remember?)

Regards
FA

mtrycrafts

10-25-2004, 03:54 PM

Close-minded - You've got to be kidding me. If there is one thing you should have learned here is that we are the most open-minded around. We will entertain any idea if there is acceptable merit in the idea. If you want close mindedness, visit other audiophile forums and check out their phobias on scientific testing. Most will not even want you around unless you basically agree that if you can't hear it you are deaf.

This reminds me of a passage from Carl Sagan's lecture , 1987, Pasadena, "The Burden of Skepticism."

"On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguis useful ideas from the worthless ones. If all ideas have equal validity then you are lost, because then, it seems to me, no ideas have any validity at all."

jneutron

10-25-2004, 04:36 PM

OK. The wavelength still changes to that of green light, 500nm.

Actually, the wavelength changes to the correct one for the media it is travelling through. Within the polycarb, the wavelength of the ir laser is indeed changed, but the frequency remains the same.

Think of it as an acoustic wave through water..because the speed of sound in water is faster than in air, the wavelength will be longer..but that doesn't mean the frequency has changed, just the speed of propogation.

So the correct statement is: The wavelength still changes to the wavelength that green light has when it is propogating in air..but it is still an IR frequency. There has been no color change..

Cheers, John

jneutron

10-25-2004, 05:45 PM

I find it ironic to the extreme, that you are now acting as if you are the knowledgable person, and I am to be ignored.

The most significant issue I can see is that regardless of your understanding of a specific topic, you will profess an understanding of it, bolstered by your statements of "experience and expertise"..

That in itself is huge...for the unknowing people, many of your claims will be believed by your smooth talk, when in fact you are just making it up as you go along, or find it by a web search...

Hypothesis is just fine, but you take it to the extreme of building a house of cards out of unsubstantiated floobydust..

How is a person to know when you are full of it???? Look at your electron collision grain boundary stuff...look at your motor-generator stuff..look at your recent defense of skin effect based time smearing...you either try to bamboozle with BS, or deflect with denigration..

And only recently, have I seen you LIE....with respect to me..
I must admit, it has taken several years, but eventually, the last fault that someone ascribed to you, you have shown to be true. Sad, really...you hadn't done that to date..

You stated it quite eloquently when you said "but I do not have the resources to determine for myself if the whole of his theory is basically correct, or wrong"...

It is unfortunate that you are unable to get up the courage to state the same for many of your other suppositions..like grain boundary crap, and motor-generator effects..

As a practicing engineer and longstanding member of the Audio Engineerig Society, with three US patents to my name, three AES papers presented, several magazine articles published, a list of audio design credits a mile long, I have the benefit of over 25 years of professional experience in the audio field. .

Unfortunately, you do not have the benefit of humility...you are unable to state that you were incorrect...on anything.

As for papers???you mean relevant ones?? I could list the papers I have presented, authored, and co-authored...but what use would that be? You would not be able to understand the topics. They would only be understood by accelerator physicists..and are not relevant to the topic at hand...so why do you tout them?

Have you dared try to present a paper on grain boundary crap??? How about skin effect time smear...Or, even, motor generator theory..How about Jitter???? Face the music, Jon...that stuff would get you laughed off the stage..course, you knew that, that's why you haven't tried to write a paper on those..

Magazine article? You mean like that Hawksford one?? Try peer review first..

I used to work with a guy, a VP at a company, who would do exactly what you do...pretend he knew it all, come up with huge crapola explanations, and denigrate when anyone actually questioned the garbage..He was, as are you, one of the biggest impediments to the furthering of knowledge in the specific field. Not because of intelligence, but because of attitude..

You do show promise in lots of the things you have done and posted...and your input is welcome always...just leave the attitude at home..

And realize that there will be times when the person who is disagreeing with your ridiculous theories does so with an understanding of the subject that you will never be able to grasp easily, if ever...

Skin theory is one of them..as is electron grain boundary interaction..

As for room treatment stuff and line conditioner stuff...I have no problem accepting your experience there..I read your posts on that stuff to learn..

Cheers, John

mtrycrafts

10-25-2004, 09:47 PM

Actually, the wavelength changes to the correct one for the media it is travelling through. Within the polycarb, the wavelength of the ir laser is indeed changed, but the frequency remains the same.

Think of it as an acoustic wave through water..because the speed of sound in water is faster than in air, the wavelength will be longer..but that doesn't mean the frequency has changed, just the speed of propogation.

So the correct statement is: The wavelength still changes to the wavelength that green light has when it is propogating in air..but it is still an IR frequency. There has been no color change..

Cheers, John

Thanks for the explanation that clears it up even more :D

mtrycrafts

10-25-2004, 09:57 PM

Actually, the wavelength changes to the correct one for the media it is travelling through. Within the polycarb, the wavelength of the ir laser is indeed changed, but the frequency remains the same.

Think of it as an acoustic wave through water..because the speed of sound in water is faster than in air, the wavelength will be longer..but that doesn't mean the frequency has changed, just the speed of propogation.

So the correct statement is: The wavelength still changes to the wavelength that green light has when it is propogating in air..but it is still an IR frequency. There has been no color change..

Cheers, John

It's about time you returned. Who let you go away anyhow? :D

J Risch

10-25-2004, 11:56 PM

And only recently, have I seen you LIE....with respect to me..

Sorry, but this is news to me. I have not lied about you, certainly not intentionally, and not to my knowledge either. Has mtry filled you head with some sort of BS? I don't suppose that you read his false statements about me in this post:
http://www.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=29424#poststop
and several others.

If you condone his behavior, and attack me for definding myself, then you are once again over the line and gone, and do not even know it.

If you didn't know any better, well, it won't be the frist time you jumped in just to pile on.

You stated it quite eloquently when you said "but I do not have the resources to determine for myself if the whole of his theory is basically correct, or wrong"...

It is unfortunate that you are unable to get up the courage to state the same for many of your other suppositions..like grain boundary crap, and motor-generator effects..

What does it take with you? There is no possible way of satisfying you, unless I agree with everything you say? I freely admit that I speculate about some of the physcis and science behind audio cable sonics. Yet this is not enough, somehow, I must do more than this, I need to prostrate myself and every other line, proclaim in bold letters whether the last sentence was a theory, or speculation, or a possibility among the realm of science?

You yourself fail to provide anywhere near the level of references and citations that you demand of others, you state things as if they were a fact, yet none of what you state is in the text books, or in any readily available journals that I am familair with, and I read a lot. You make claims, yet do not back them up, make statements about other's opinions, and theories and even their speculations (mostly commenting abnout me, as you do seem to have a personal bent, despite many protestations to the contrary) without providing so much as a web reference, a book citation or an article in "Physics Today". For whatever reason, you expect everyone else to believe you automatically, when your claims are NOT mainstream (there are very few actual pure research projects that involve audio), and are not a given, but YOUR personal interpretation of the physcis, as you know them, limited to your experiences with audio. That does not make for a newly minted physical law, accordring to John Escallier.

I see little point in continuing to post replies here, if you are going to attack me for no reason, or just to defend mtry, at a forum on a web site that has historically been extremely hostile to me personally, I am only going to spin my wheels. The truth won't matter, science won't matter, I will be shouted down and slandered and denigrated with no real chance to defend myself, and ultimately, some excuse will be found to ban me anyway, the slander will be allowed to stand, and I will be shut out.

mtry is worse than ever, and you are becoming more like him all the time.
The only place to fall lower after that is down to the level of Krueger.
Enjoy your new AR style haven for naysayers, I am sure that it will be quite cozy.

Jon Risch

J Risch

10-26-2004, 12:09 AM

It is you who owe the apology, NOW.

Nope, I think that YOU owe ME an apology.

However, I know better than to hold my breath for it.

I see little reason to continue to post in this thread, you chased off Dessayfan with your demands for your special brand of "science", and now you had to go get John E. to defend you, and he is ignoring your slander and BS to attack me.

Remember mtry, once you chase of all the newbies and neophytes, all you will have to post to are your camp followers, and that will get boring and dull, all of you agreeing that it all sounds the same.

Jon Risch

mtrycrafts

10-26-2004, 01:17 AM

Nope, I think that YOU owe ME an apology.

However, I know better than to hold my breath for it.

I see little reason to continue to post in this thread, you chased off Dessayfan with your demands for your special brand of "science", and now you had to go get John E. to defend you, and he is ignoring your slander and BS to attack me.

Remember mtry, once you chase of all the newbies and neophytes, all you will have to post to are your camp followers, and that will get boring and dull, all of you agreeing that it all sounds the same.

Jon Risch

Jon, You need professional help, badly Seek it for your family's benefit. You are pathetic.

Clint DeBoer

10-26-2004, 09:38 AM

at a forum on a web site that has historically been extremely hostile to me personally,Now, Jon - don't try to involve us in this squabble. We are openly hostile to unsubstantiated claims, not you personally - at least not until someone makes it personal. This thread got off topic quickly, unfortunately, but I assure you the site is not hostile to you in any way. If it were I'd have your name indexed on Google next to a picture of Daffy Duck... :D

The truth won't matter, science won't matter, I will be shouted down and slandered and denigrated with no real chance to defend myself, and ultimately, some excuse will be found to ban me anyway, the slander will be allowed to stand, and I will be shut out.That, I have to say, is the most outlandish thing I've heard in a while. You're not a pariah unless you choose to make yourself one (i.e. have you ever been banned?) In the case of this thread, you haven't made any psientific statements.

Now, to address the bigger problem, to which Jon has a point. This has been a very hostile thread.

These are the most "open" forums you will likely find (though that is certainly subjective). To say "science" and "truth" won't matter on this site is laughable - to everyone who posts here.

Here's how I'll help: feel free to come back and address (scientifically or subjectively) any cable topic and you'll find a solid discourse. It may get heated, but it shouldn't get personal. If it does, PM me and I'll step in.

This personal bashing needs to stop from all, regardless of the histories.

I would suggest everyone take a breath and back down - there are plenty of technical "arguments" to be made regarding the differences you have in opinions of cable sonics and physics.

Jon: This is a great place to test any of your scientific theories and measurements/calculations. You certainly would have an abundance of peers to review your findings. Take any topic you like and we'll address it to an extent that you could publish a paper on it, guaranteed. If you can't bring it here and talk about it, that means it's probabaly not measureable (at all) and you would have good reason not to post (here). This is not so much a challenge as an obvious fact. 'Yes' men, good science does not make.

Mrty: You don't need to inform the world about Jon's supposed past - just address his comments here and now, assuming he chooses to continue to post on cable topics (which I hope he does).

This thread could have been a great place to debate 'Vivid' - snake oil or not. Instead it digressed quickly and is much less of a thread than it could have been.

Please argue the "science" not the "person". I dont want to moderate - its a waste of my time.

jneutron

10-26-2004, 11:13 AM

Sorry, but this is news to me. I have not lied about you, certainly not intentionally, and not to my knowledge either.

You have...it may indeed be unintentional, or it may not. That would depend on your ability to remember the past.

You have made claims on CA about me which are incorrect..

Has mtry filled you head with some sort of BS?
Mtry has nothing to do with my post about your behaviour. My post is entirely based on the history of your abusive attitudes.
I don't suppose that you read his false statements about me in this post:
http://www.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=29424#poststop
and several others.
I have read the posts from both you and Mtry. With no apriori knowledge, I am unable to determine the accuracy of either..
If you condone his behavior, and attack me for definding myself, then you are once again over the line and gone, and do not even know it.
I have condoned nothing, nor have I attacked you for defending yourself. You would be best served reading the posts more accurately, rather than shooting from the hip.
If you didn't know any better, well, it won't be the frist time you jumped in just to pile on.
As I stated, my post to you is a standalone...meaning, the factual information contained within does not require the presence of the posts preceding it.

My post was placed to inform the unwary and unknowing, that you present everything you have made up as being factual, you defend your silly little factoids by attacking others, and by touting the "WORLD OF HIGH END AUDIO", and the "inexperience of others" within that world.

While you have some rather excellent information on your website, the garbage that is also there will be indistinguishable from the good.
What does it take with you? There is no possible way of satisfying you, unless I agree with everything you say? I freely admit that I speculate about some of the physcis and science behind audio cable sonics. Yet this is not enough, somehow, I must do more than this, I need to prostrate myself and every other line, proclaim in bold letters whether the last sentence was a theory, or speculation, or a possibility among the realm of science?.
I have explained this several times to you...perhaps you will listen this time?

First, drop the attitude. You have, by your website, and your postings, shown that you have a very rudimentary understanding of electromagnetic field theory, physics, quantum theory, and electron transport. That in itself, is not in any way a failing, either intellectually, or otherwise.

What is at issue is your failing as an individual, to accept that others will know far more than you on the subjects, so you attack the bearers of that message, you attack their motives, their understandings, their experience. This you have done repeatedly to me, and I have seen that behaviour from you towards others.
You yourself fail to provide anywhere near the level of references and citations that you demand of others, you state things as if they were a fact, yet none of what you state is in the text books, or in any readily available journals that I am familair with, and I read a lot. You make claims, yet do not back them up, make statements about other's opinions, and theories and even their speculations (mostly commenting abnout me, as you do seem to have a personal bent, despite many protestations to the contrary) without providing so much as a web reference, a book citation or an article in "Physics Today". For whatever reason, you expect everyone else to believe you automatically, when your claims are NOT mainstream (there are very few actual pure research projects that involve audio), and are not a given, but YOUR personal interpretation of the physcis, as you know them, limited to your experiences with audio. That does not make for a newly minted physical law, accordring to John Escallier.

I have provided you references upon which to learn, by author, title, chapter, page, and paragraph, backing up what I state...and yet, you continue to claim that I have not..

I have done the research, done the building, done the tests, for that which I claim evidence..first case in point: the dual coax cable I designed, fabricated, and tested..and reported at prop, at cable, at AR, at DIY, and here. I have shown the derivation which resulted in my L*C=1034*DC, the ramifications on cable parameteric determination, and how anyone can very easily tailor a coaxial wire to any impedance, any inductance, any capacitance with very well defined constraints..it does not break the laws of physics, is very easy for everyone to use, and is absolutely testable. Second case in point...skin effect test by way of the Hawksford paper garbage..

As for being bent towards dissing you??? Look at your post here...filled with (shall we say) "anomolous statements". You still display only ad hominem attacks..and divert from the reality of the situation..

Let me again state that reality...

You, with your "guru-like" attitude, are by far, the worst thing to happen to high end audio in the last 20 years. You have led many, many people down your particular garden path, with sandbags, dielectric involvement, motor-generator, grain boundary, strand jumping....the list goes on..

You have, singly, been responsible for the stalling of the majority of continued learning in this field.

Vendors hype their product with tidbits pulled from your website, spouting huge amounts of hyperbole..magic, which you help support..

I've got news for you...it ain't magic..and the sooner you embrace the possibility that others can run rings around your understanding on specific topics, the better off you will be.

I do not need clowns explaining to me that I have to join the "world of real physics"...because those clowns cannot even pronounce many of the words I use at work.
I see little point in continuing to post replies here, if you are going to attack me for no reason, or just to defend mtry, at a forum on a web site that has historically been extremely hostile to me personally, I am only going to spin my wheels. The truth won't matter, science won't matter, I will be shouted down and slandered and denigrated with no real chance to defend myself, and ultimately, some excuse will be found to ban me anyway, the slander will be allowed to stand, and I will be shut out..
As is clear, I have not attacked you for no reason....there are very clear and specific reasons your behaviour must be pointed out.

I have not defended Mtry, so stop with that red herring.

Historically, you have always come in here guns abalazing, so your experience of hostility is a direct result of your attitude.

Banning????? In the last 3 years I have frequented the forums, I am aware of only one banning from any forum...and that is Steve Eddy at cables, and you were the person instrumental in that banning...why you choose to deflect that particularly heinous act by claiming you are worried about being banned, is your own demon.
mtry is worse than ever, and you are becoming more like him all the time.
I am unable to form an opinion as to Mtry's historical behaviour, as both of you seem to be referring to things before my time..

As for your statement about me...you have always been comfortable using broad brush strokes against all who dare speak out against your behaviour.

When you are capable of discussing entities in a reasonable and logical fashion without resorting to your historically consistent attacks against others, you will be dealt with civilly.

When you give nice, you will get that in return...I have told you that many, many times....and it is still true.

I have awaited for years now, your conversion to a more civil and reasonable being. I still wait.

It is still my contention that your experience and expertise is invaluable..I have no desire for you to just up and leave in a huff..that is the behaviour of a child.

Cheers, John