Vivid: Great or snake oil?

[mtrycrafts]

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]

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]

Now with counter-charges

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]

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!

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

 

[mtrycrafts]

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]

.

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 Boy we need every business today

 

[mtrycrafts]

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+"risch"+-piano+-bug+-algorithm&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=736ub5$*3h@news01.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]

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

 

[Audioholics]

no pics, please.

 

[Rob Babcock]

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

 

[Dessayfan]

May I just say, in leaving.

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]

...... 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]

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 . 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]

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]

Geeze....go away for a week....what happens???

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]

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]

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

 

[mtrycrafts]

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?

 

[J Risch]

Defending mtry now, eh?

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]

Who owes who?

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