SID - Sound Improvement Disc from Germany

[Thad E Ginathom]

...without knowing!

There is, with these things, a fundamental problem. We have to be convinced sufficiently to buy the thing! Some here are convinced by the principle, some aren't. To be fair, at least there is a principle, be it right or wrong, behind this particular product.

But, if I bought it, I just can't imagine not roping in Wife to test it ...and me!

 

[captrajesh]

Gospel is required by those who want to believe in things that don't exist.

The "question" raised is a very valid one.

If no one has any answers to it ... then I get my answer, and so do the forum members.

I'm not sure if I could put across my point (at least to you) clearly.

I'm neither a believer nor a disbeliever. I have an open mind and only trust my own ears.

All I'm asking is, believe your own ears. As simple as that.

 

[square_wave]

Interesting. I don't question the evidence of your ears --- but did you do a without-knowing test? The full rigours of science are not required: just, informally, for fun!

No I did not since there was no doubt in my mind about the subtle change I heard in his setup. I could not hear the same change in my house at all even when I knew the disc is inserted. I promptly returned it.

I changed from a very expensive speaker cable to a much lesser priced one because the lesser priced one is better.

I changed from a branded 20 year warranty branded amplifier to an Indian made one because it sounded better.

If I ever lose the ability to discern differences without blind testing, I will exit this hobby and assemble a system based or advertisements on audioholics forum

 

[jls001]

Another important ingredient: are the subjects of blind tests people dragged in from the street, not literally, but in the sense are they trained/experienced listeners? Are they told that they must listen for differences in so and so aspect of music reproduction when listening to sample A, B, C, etc.?

I am asking because when I ventured out to put together my first serious music system, I didn't even know what to listen to, and I had to take along an audio engineer friend to do the bulk of the critical listening for me. To my credit, I did burn a CD with some of my favourite tracks for auditioning. It's not as if I never listened to music till that time in my life and suddenly woke up that day and decided to start listening. Prior to that, I have owned six music "systems".

I want to be enlightened on this please.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

ll I'm asking is, believe your own ears. As simple as that

... after spending the money --- is the problem.

Before spending the money, we have to see convincing arguments and ideas. It is before buying the product that we make the most important judgement, and afterwards that we have a bias towards confirming that judgement, which is why we should have an open mind about not necessarily believing our own ears.

If I ever lose the ability to discern differences without blind testing, I will exit this hobby and assemble a system based or advertisements on audioholics forum

So you have complete confidence that you could make all the same decisions blind, then?

Not that I'm asking you to. I just think we should be inclusive. Your posts give the impression that. if we set you up, and you did indeed make all the same decisions blind, your response might be that confirms that blind testing is useless. No: it wouldn't.

Added to which, maybe not everyone has your ears. How do you feel about the magazine tests which are read, and used as buying guides, by the majority? The beginners

Another important ingredient: are the subjects of blind tests people dragged in from the street, not literally, but in the sense are they trained/experienced listeners? Are they told that they must listen for differences in so and so aspect of music reproduction when listening to sample A, B, C, etc.?

So far as the "Matrix" test is concerned, we are told that they were people well used to high end kit: not dragged in off the street at all. Probably very similar to some of the more experienced members here.

I am asking because when I ventured out to put together my first serious music system, I didn't even know what to listen to...

I wish I'd known your experienced engineer back then. I got so confused by specifications and reviews that I just gave up and decided to trust to the recommendations of one supplier. I think I was lucky. I think I was unlucky with the next amplifier I bought, but I didn't realise it until I replaced it, with the one I have now. Three amplifiers, two sets of speakers: I am still a very inexperienced buyer. I'm very interested in the subjective views of others with more experience; I'll read the comparing-five-items type stuff, but I'd love to see a blind test as part of the latter. However sincere the reviewer, I bet it would upset some results. Remember the JVC speaker blind-test article? Professionals!

 

[alpha1]

Another important ingredient: are the subjects of blind tests people dragged in from the street, not literally, but in the sense are they trained/experienced listeners? Are they told that they must listen for differences in so and so aspect of music reproduction when listening to sample A, B, C, etc.?

I am asking because when I ventured out to put together my first serious music system, I didn't even know what to listen to, and I had to take along an audio engineer friend to do the bulk of the critical listening for me. To my credit, I did burn a CD with some of my favourite tracks for auditioning. It's not as if I never listened to music till that time in my life and suddenly woke up that day and decided to start listening. Prior to that, I have owned six music "systems".

I want to be enlightened on this please.

Matrix-Hifi
Why not go through this?


This thread is also losing objectivity (like countless others in this forum).
I don't get it. You want to spend money on snake oil, please go ahead.
But there is absolutely no need to rationalize it.
Its a personal preference - doesn't make it reality or truth.

 

[square_wave]

The Matrix test proves only two things.

There is better synergy in System A than System B.

OR

Testing method is flawed.

Reasons:

1.The usage of a switch system for switching cables. This pretty much negates the whole purpose. The quality of the switch is one problem. The switch system pretty much extends its personality to both the wires being tested equally making the testing skewed in favour of the naysayers.

2.Using large number of random listeners. Many will have no clue.

3.Playing short burst of unfamiliar music samples. This is a big problem.

4.Using a random music system which one is not intimately familiar with.

From a theoretical point of view, many of the above points can be debated by folks from the testing fraternity. But this is one of the reasons why audiophiles stay away from blind testing. The testing system does not reflect their ground realities.

 

[jls001]

Matrix-Hifi
Why not go through this?


This thread is also losing objectivity (like countless others in this forum).
I don't get it. You want to spend money on snake oil, please go ahead.
But there is absolutely no need to rationalize it.
Its a personal preference - doesn't make it reality or truth.

Thanks for the link. I guess it answers my query. To quote from their Blind Tests page:

Quote

The human testers were all trained ears and used to extensively listening to high end equipments, a good number of them participated, each with his own conception of the high end world, some totally subjectivists, some completely objectivists, some in between.

Unquote

Apparently they looked like a good mix of listeners and all are claimed to be familiar with "high end".

BTW, there are subjectivists and objectivists in these kind of discussions. And perhaps there are also "in-betweens". So this thread was never "objective" in the first place, and I suspect it will never conclude to an objectivists' point of view alone.

What I wanted to highlight when I started this thread was to let others know of outright charlatans (for I believe there are many in the audio industry), while exploring interesting new ideas and devices that may really contribute to an improved sound. One risks throwing away the baby along with the bathwater when dismissing all such devices and claims as snakeskin oil. Our lack of understanding of their workings, or their divergence from the conventional, should not be automatic reasons to dismiss them. There are perhaps some things that we can't rationalise, yet hear and feel. Why close our minds to such possibilities? No, I am not advocating throwing away one's hard-earned money on dubious and unproven claims. These claims must remain dubious till proven otherwise. Please go ahead and use the best scientific methodologies to arrive at a decision. In my specific case, I don't have access to such scientific tools, nor do I know the theories. I will be glad to be enlightened by fellow members. But I can categorically state that I have heard in my own modest system the differences between:

a) different interconnect cables - have tried many and still own many including some amatuerish DIYs - sometimes the difference is not subtle.

b) speakers cables - tried the two I own - again, difference is not trivial.

c) footers - the two sets I own sound different when used below my turntable but doesn't seem to have much effect when used elsewhere. The difference in my system is subtle, but discernible.

d) CD players - I won't even compare them as their price difference is too large.

e) power amplifiers - I won't compare them as one is tube hybrid and other is solid state Class A

f) and, preamplifiers.

All the above is in the context of my own system. YMMV.

And I have heard distinct differences between various types of footers on a fellow forumers' system. On this very high-end system, even fixing the same footer upside down had effects on the tone and soundstage width! One has to hear such things for oneself. Who would have thought footers would make such difference! I have absolutely no way of quantifying it in objective terms. If I had, I would have started making such footers and selling and making money

PS: for an avowed objectivist bunch, they have only a pie chart to show for numbers. I thought being objective is about using scientific parameters to measure a device's performance? Or am I missing out on the bigger picture here? Or is the objective of their test only to choose A against B without visually seeing A and B, presumably to avoid the influence of brands and costs?

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

PS: for an avowed objectivist bunch, they have only a pie chart to show for numbers. I thought being objective is about using scientific parameters to measure a device's performance? Or am I missing out on the bigger picture here?

Yes, you are missing the fact that it was a listening test!

Square_wave, a little more objectivty might be in order?

1.The usage of a switch system for switching cables. --- They didn't use one. Did you even look at the photos?

2.Using large number of random listeners. Many will have no clue. --- Did you read the link? Did you even read my very short quotes from the lnk?

3.Playing short burst of unfamiliar music samples. This is a big problem. --- Don't remember what they did, but why should it be a big problem?

4.Using a random music system which one is not intimately familiar with. --- So,one can only test what one is familiar with already? That makes sense how?

You are grasping at straws to discredit a method. Why?

Please note that HiFi Matrix is just a bunch of audio fans, just like us. Well, perhaps a little more open-minded than us

The last time this particular site came up, someone said it would be a really good thing to try at a HFV meet. OK, obviously something you won't join in with: nobody is forcing you to blind-test anything?

 

[manoj.p]

T
From a theoretical point of view, many of the above points can be debated by folks from the testing fraternity. But this is one of the reasons why audiophiles stay away from blind testing. The testing system does not reflect their ground realities.

The only reason Audiophiles stay away from testing (whether blind or real scientific ones) is because it brings out ground realities and their delusions. On one hand we are to trust our ears only but we shouldn't if the results are otherwise, even if in the blind testing.

If there is a difference these things make, it should come out in real data/quantitative tests or blind tests. Afterall, the audiophiles do have the "golden ears".

 

[square_wave]

I am actually thinking that if in these kind of tests one cannot prove that a wadia state of the art player is not better than a sony dvd player, then there is something seriously wrong with these kind tests.

When the day comes they can prove that there is a difference between two vastly different components, I will believe in blind tests of these type.

 

[jls001]

The only reason Audiophiles stay away from testing (whether blind or real scientific ones) is because it brings out ground realities and their delusions. On one hand we are to trust our ears only but we shouldn't if the results are otherwise, even if in the blind testing.

If there is a difference these things make, it should come out in real data/quantitative tests or blind tests. Afterall, the audiophiles do have the "golden ears".

I am open to learning more about these blind tests and scientific tests, how they are conducted, what parameters are tested, what data is acquired, what and how inferences are made from the acquired data as to the suitability of the device under test for music reproduction, how those parameters translate to commonly accepted subjective quantifiers used to describe the performances of an audio component.

I personally believe, and have heard, differences in different components (I am no golden ear even by a long stretch, I unreservedly admit that I have an average ear, and don't always enjoy records that purport to be audiophile records, which probably makes me a pseudophile at best) and would love to understand how the blind tests and scientific tests help explain those differences.

I am not an objectivist, for now, due to lack of knowledge and opportunities, and would gladly change my colours if someone can show me incontrovertible and rational proofs and data. Having said that, I'm not a total subjectivist either. I like to think, for now, that there is merit on both sides of the fence, as in many things in life.

I have myself gone through subjective tests and have concluded most of my purchase decisions on that basis. What I want to learn from you all is the other method.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

When the day comes they can prove that there is a difference between two vastly different components, I will believe in blind tests of these type.

I just realised... This is the point that you are missing:

The tests prove nothing. The testers do.

If you can't hear the same things blind as you can seeing the gear, then where is the problem? Not in the test. Hence, I ask: why are you attacking the method?

I am open to learning more about these blind tests and scientific tests, how they are conducted, what parameters are tested, what data is acquired, what and how inferences are made from the acquired data as to the suitability of the device under test for music reproduction, how those parameters translate to commonly accepted subjective quantifiers used to describe the performances of an audio component.

Make up your own! This is not chemicals that might save or destroy lives: it can be a strict science, but so far as audio community testing is concerned, why not start with just listening --- but some way has to be devised to remove all the non-audio cues and biases.

So far, my only experience is in proving to myself that I can't tell higher-resolution audio file formats. I'm not saying that there is no difference, but I can't here it. It doesn't surprise me, because my hearing tails off well before the upper limits of CDs --- but still I had to prove it to myself. It wasn't scientific at all; I didn't even get another person to help ...I just clicked on different things a sufficient number of times to get well confused, and, the clarity I had convinced myself I could hear wasn't there. Well, actually, it was, but it was there in the lower-definition files too!

I don't think there is any need to change colours, just a need to accept possibilities. What I would like to see, for instance, in published group tests for things like cables is i. accepted measurements and ii. blind test results. As I keep saying, I think that the industry should adopt blind testing: I really am not trying to force it on any individual. If I'm buying, then like most of us, I'll go out and buy what I like, according to a number of factors, including sound. Errr... I nearly bought an amplifier once, because the volume control felt so good. That's probably only one step up from liking the colour! As it sounded at least as good as the one I did buy, it was only budget that stopped me. It cost a lot more. (It was a Primare, if that tactile experience rings any bells!).

 

[jls001]

@Thad: c'mon, seriously? Here we are, with folks on opposing sides ready to tear each other's innards out, and you're advising me to improvise as I go along along. I thought each party had a firm ground on which they think they are standing? And just who will accept my parameters, my measurements, my inferences? That of a pseudophile (by my own admission) with little audio knowledge?

What I asked is not directed at any particular member here. My interest is to hear both viewpoints, shorn of posturings, clever plays with verbiage, and oblique insults and inuendos.

I think a scientific pursuit should stand up to the rigours of the points I mentioned. If anything is missing or wrong, please feel free to add or correct.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

:lol:

No... I'm saying that it is a philosophy, a way of thinking, to accept that, whatever we say, there are many factors that influence our assessment. --- and I'm saying that any effort to remove those factors is interesting and worthwhile, and not every effort has to be ISO certified and observed by an international team of academics.

Point in question being, it is the easiest thing to ask a disinterested friend or family member to load CDs, with or without sound enhancing effects, out of the sight of the listener. It's just an example. It is not how I'd like cable companies to sell me their USB cables (which I do not believe in) or even their analogue ICs (where I admit the possibility). There is science ...and there is science.

It is not easy, nor safe, to ask a disinterested relative to reconfigure your system for you while you wait outside. It is easy, assuming they use the system at all, to get them to play different CDs, CDs with or without treatment, different audio files on a PC.

The anti crowd keep on that they trust nothing but their ears, but that is exactly what blind testing is about. Why insist on using the eyes, if trusting nothing but the ears? Blind testing is about sound, and nothing but sound. It's about trusting the ears!

 

[manoj.p]

@Jls001:
There are tests which can be done scientifically and it depends upon the claim that is made about a tweak or a product. Some tests needs proper equipments etc, some can be done by end users pretty quickly depending on a claim. Like in the case of SID, they claim of improving the sound by reducing the reflections inside the cd drive and allowing the laser to rather focus on the data. Fine. But do we know whether the reflections are actually the problem? Or is the laser reader actually designed to ignore the reflections? A scientific test will determine whether there is a problem of that sort. An end user can quickly test this himself too. See below.

I am really skeptical about this. CD's are also used in computers for storing/retrieving data. the CD drives inside the computers are more prone to vibrations because its made industrial way and these drives read data way more faster compared to drives in cd players. If the 0's and 1's are getting corrupted due to reflected light inside the drive, almost all the data on the discs will be corrupted. The computer will be the first place to reject the data as corrupted files.
If it does not affect the computer drive/disc/data, I am doubtful it will ever happen for a cd player or any other entertainment device. Want to do a real test? Get an audio cd, read the content and save to a PC. Then blacken the top side and save it again to PC. Now do a bit by bit analysis and see if you get any difference.

If a scientific test cannot be done, the we can do the blind testing. And blind testing is nothing but to take the bias out. Test of the pudding lies in eating. If there is a difference, we will hear it.

Bit different topic and not directed at anyone:- I sometimes wonder, why this emf, jitter, using different cables, power conditioners etc do not have any effects on video? after all, if it affects audio, it should be affecting the video too. Why we don't see some of the audiophile grade, exotic products in video too? I would sure like to have some tweaks which will boost the contrast to 1m:1, make colors vivid yet natural looking, make the picture look real life, as if some veils have been lifted in front of my eyes. Since I love the video as well, I won't mind spending some money on a exotic HDMI cable, a special power cord and a wine glass to put on top my projector.

 

[prem]

Hi manoj.p/jls001

Power cables also affect video picture. To know if your power is dirty do a simple test. Connect your laptop to the mains and checkout a photograph. Disconnect from mains and see the quality of the same picture on battery power. In most cases the photograph seen through the battery operated mode will be more clear and vivid. The dulling of the picture when seen operated through the mains is largely because of the pollutants in the power. Now change the power cord on the computer to a so called audiophile power cord. In most cases the picture quality will improve but it is unlikely it will be of the same quality as seen through battery operation. So what the so called audiophile power cord does is cleaning up of some pollutants in the power. This does not necessarily translate into better sound when used in audio because that is system dependent. There will definitely be some clean up but typically in the clean up only some frequencies get cleaned up resulting in a change in the balance of sound which you may or may not like. The challenge in any tweak or use of audiophile cords is to retain the balance while at the same time improving other audio parameters.

 

[prem]

Hi jls001

Incidentally the acoustic system resonators have an European patent. Apparently they not only work in the audio space, they also improve efficiency of an engine. When used in a car they are actually supposed to improve the fuel efficency. There are tests to prove this. The resonators work on the principle of normalising the air pressure in the room. Since sound gets affected by the surrounding air pressure, normalising it in the pressure zones helps in bringing out more harmonics. The resonators do not absorb or diffuse any frequencies. They just reduce build up of air pressure at the corners or centre

 

[prem]

Hi jls001


Of all the tweaks and audiophile cords that i have heard, the acoustic system resonators are the most dangerous. All other cords and tweaks i have tried may or may not have worked but the resonators placed wrongly can completely mess up the sound to the extent that you cannot listen to your system. And when i say placed wrongly it it is to the magnitude of a couple of cms. They are that sensitive. Trust me a 10 lakh system can be made to sound like a boom box by having a resonator placed wrongly.

And surprisingly when placed correctly, the difference is only in better harmonics. The soundstage actually does not increase but the feeling of space between instruments increase.

 

[prem]

Hi jls001


Having said the resonators are a dangerous tweak, i found them more useful in my earlier digital set up because harmonic development in a digital set up is always an issue. With my vinyl set up i have drastically cut down my use of resonators.