It is irrelevant. He mentions the dual slit experiment which is specific to wave particle duality which does not apply with a simple optical detector. He also made a post to a CD optical system which really shows nothing, as it neither discusses nor quantifies the spectrum of visible light, which is what he raises as an "issue" (which an IR laser produces almost none of), nor does it discuss critical performance parameters such as the rejection ratio of off-axis light entry, which is what GK is claiming to be an issue, but which the optical assembly is designed to reject, nor does it discuss the existence of, or the performance aspects, i.e. extinguishing ratio for visible light, of the IR pass filter in the optical assembly whose purpose is specifically to reject visible light, i.e. the think GK is claiming to be an issue ...... <- See this is what someone who understands the problem writes, not links that add little to the discussion, nor obfuscating remarks related to wave/particle duality, or lots of words that have no relation to the issue being raised as you did. All of this is moot of course, as data loss, jitter, etc. are easily measured on a CD if one possesses the right tools, which are not even that expensive.
GK is not proposing a theory in the scientific sense, it is at best a hypothesis, but really it appears to be more marketing blurb.
The person claiming to hear a difference is under no obligation to do anything, but if they would like to convince others, other than a small subset, then having some proof that it does as claimed (easily done in this case with error / jitter measurement), or at least a sound hypothesis that takes into account real aspects of the optical system is going to help. Otherwise people like me who do understand the problem, will point out obvious holes in their reasoning, and while the narrow subset may not care, others will read what I and others write and form a healthy level of doubt to the claims.
GK is not proposing a theory in the scientific sense, it is at best a hypothesis, but really it appears to be more marketing blurb.
The person claiming to hear a difference is under no obligation to do anything, but if they would like to convince others, other than a small subset, then having some proof that it does as claimed (easily done in this case with error / jitter measurement), or at least a sound hypothesis that takes into account real aspects of the optical system is going to help. Otherwise people like me who do understand the problem, will point out obvious holes in their reasoning, and while the narrow subset may not care, others will read what I and others write and form a healthy level of doubt to the claims.