Hdm,
You are exectly right. Without scientific facts this forum degenerates into "He said / I heard" nonsense. That is my point exactly.
For instance, you give us the example of freezing your CDs. I have no doubt that you honestly think this helps. Maybe its great - I don't know. But tellling us this in a vaccum does no good at all. What I am trying to spur is a dicussion about WHY it makes the CD sound better. Because if it REALLY does sound better then there should be some physical, measurable change. We need articles or explanations from actual scientists as to what (if anything) is happening at the molecular level that make a laser read a CD better after you make it really, really cold.
Of all the hobbies I have been envolved in none is as riddled with pseudo-scientific gimmickry as Audio. I think the reason is that audio quality tends to be subjective by nature. After all, if you say that this tweek or that tweek "sounds better" to you then who am I to say it doesn't and no audiophile wants to admit that he "just can't hear it". The problem is that just because you say it sounds better doesn't mean it really does (in a physical sense). In short I am trying to back up subjective judgement with scientific evidence.
(I use the term "you" a lot but its just for illustration. I'm not picking on you personally)
Ross
You are exectly right. Without scientific facts this forum degenerates into "He said / I heard" nonsense. That is my point exactly.
For instance, you give us the example of freezing your CDs. I have no doubt that you honestly think this helps. Maybe its great - I don't know. But tellling us this in a vaccum does no good at all. What I am trying to spur is a dicussion about WHY it makes the CD sound better. Because if it REALLY does sound better then there should be some physical, measurable change. We need articles or explanations from actual scientists as to what (if anything) is happening at the molecular level that make a laser read a CD better after you make it really, really cold.
Of all the hobbies I have been envolved in none is as riddled with pseudo-scientific gimmickry as Audio. I think the reason is that audio quality tends to be subjective by nature. After all, if you say that this tweek or that tweek "sounds better" to you then who am I to say it doesn't and no audiophile wants to admit that he "just can't hear it". The problem is that just because you say it sounds better doesn't mean it really does (in a physical sense). In short I am trying to back up subjective judgement with scientific evidence.
(I use the term "you" a lot but its just for illustration. I'm not picking on you personally)
Ross