• 01-19-2004, 06:44 AM
    maxg
    I knew I hated digital and here's why....
    http://www.diamondcenter.net/digitalstress.html

    OK - the guy is both barking mad and making a sales pitch but he might, just might, be on to something.

    Mtry - check out his DBT references too.....
  • 01-19-2004, 09:14 AM
    Feanor
    Whenever anybody uses the term "life energy", I think, "BS" ...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by maxg
    http://www.diamondcenter.net/digitalstress.html

    OK - the guy is both barking mad and making a sales pitch but he might, just might, be on to something.

    Mtry - check out his DBT references too.....

    ... glad he likes DSD, though. ;)
  • 01-19-2004, 12:04 PM
    mtrycraft
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by maxg
    http://www.diamondcenter.net/digitalstress.html

    OK - the guy is both barking mad and making a sales pitch but he might, just might, be on to something.

    Mtry - check out his DBT references too.....


    I am not getting a website. But, this claim is nothing new and nothing to that claim, especially if he likes DSD which is digital as well. No, sampling rate has nothing to do with illness.
    Do you have a better link?
  • 01-19-2004, 12:35 PM
    kelsci
    http://www.diamondcenter.net/digitalstress.htm

    Mtry, I tried the link and got the site. The above is the copy of what I got in the address column which appears to be the same as what MAXG had on his post.
  • 01-19-2004, 12:45 PM
    kelsci
    MAXG; I felt lousy in the head long before there were digital recordings. It is possible though that digital might effect us in some way subliminaly in the audio domain but the only thing I could think of would be a certain harshness that some might here in some recordings. These days, I fall asleep to just about anything that is music to begin with. In fact, I can fall asleep with a home theater playing. In the 60s when I lived in N.Y.C. I fell asleep in the subways to the drone of the noise of the train and would wake up when the train stopped and it was quiet for a very few minutes.
  • 01-19-2004, 03:30 PM
    Geoffcin
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by maxg
    http://www.diamondcenter.net/digitalstress.html

    OK - the guy is both barking mad and making a sales pitch but he might, just might, be on to something.

    Mtry - check out his DBT references too.....

    This guy should be selling cables.
  • 01-19-2004, 04:58 PM
    RGA
    Why do you feel you must get Mrty's approval. Mrty simply takes whatever opinion the establishment has on any scientific issue and backs it up. There will always be one/few or a large minority of Doctorits that come along with a different opinion. In Medicine of course Dr.Atkins came along and showed the community they and their fancey DBT touting ESTABLISHED religious "like" doctorines based of "so-Called" quality science was dead wrong.

    Another scientist had something on Venus that asically made the scientific community eat crow even though for 20 years that scientist was ostrasized. Science is about making sure protocols are correct and about testing the test more than almost anything else. If the test was correct...then they would have no need to still be testing psychics for example. And Guess what they still do those tests and they're still serious about them...so even though we all laugh at the psychic claims the science community still makes an effort at testing and still has inconclusive results. Even on something as silly(to us) as Psychics...the fact that audio gets compared to those claimants is of course suppose to insinuate a sameness which would be admitting defeat in a way. You cannot pass such a test ever BTW...if you do you'd have to do another. If you fail it though your turn is over. You will be asked FOREVER to do the test and as soon as you fail you 're out.

    If you've ever taken a psychology course you'll know why they continue to revise and re-work the tests. That darn word validity comes in to play there too. The one thing good though is that if you say you're a psychic you should be able to work with people to find an aceptable testing methodology that is acceptable...

    The scientific folks running the tests however like JJ(at AT&T), are not prepared to say that all working SS amplifiers sound the same or that the tests done where people failed mean the amps sound the same. Look at the DB definitions and the definition of validity and once you have you can let Mrty hope and twist it to mean or ELUDE a result he wants...the definitions and the conclusions you are ALLOWED to draw from the tests are quite clear. Real scientists/psychologists know them....engineers didn't get that class at school...too one dimensional in thinking to figure it out perhaps. (some World class, literally, Acousticengineers like Martin Colloms, think a bit outside the box). Doesn't make him right but he has obviously read the definitions of the terms outside his field.
  • 01-19-2004, 06:39 PM
    Pat D
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Why do you feel you must get Mrty's approval. Mrty simply takes whatever opinion the establishment has on any scientific issue and backs it up. There will always be one/few or a large minority of Doctorits that come along with a different opinion. In Medicine of course Dr.Atkins came along and showed the community they and their fancey DBT touting ESTABLISHED religious "like" doctorines based of "so-Called" quality science was dead wrong.

    Another scientist had something on Venus that asically made the scientific community eat crow even though for 20 years that scientist was ostrasized. Science is about making sure protocols are correct and about testing the test more than almost anything else. If the test was correct...then they would have no need to still be testing psychics for example. And Guess what they still do those tests and they're still serious about them...so even though we all laugh at the psychic claims the science community still makes an effort at testing and still has inconclusive results. Even on something as silly(to us) as Psychics...the fact that audio gets compared to those claimants is of course suppose to insinuate a sameness which would be admitting defeat in a way. You cannot pass such a test ever BTW...if you do you'd have to do another. If you fail it though your turn is over. You will be asked FOREVER to do the test and as soon as you fail you 're out.

    If you've ever taken a psychology course you'll know why they continue to revise and re-work the tests. That darn word validity comes in to play there too. The one thing good though is that if you say you're a psychic you should be able to work with people to find an aceptable testing methodology that is acceptable...

    The scientific folks running the tests however like JJ(at AT&T), are not prepared to say that all working SS amplifiers sound the same or that the tests done where people failed mean the amps sound the same. Look at the DB definitions and the definition of validity and once you have you can let Mrty hope and twist it to mean or ELUDE a result he wants...the definitions and the conclusions you are ALLOWED to draw from the tests are quite clear. Real scientists/psychologists know them....engineers didn't get that class at school...too one dimensional in thinking to figure it out perhaps. (some World class, literally, Acousticengineers like Martin Colloms, think a bit outside the box). Doesn't make him right but he has obviously read the definitions of the terms outside his field.

    You fail to apply minimal standards of intellectual honesty to understanding our position. Who can never "pass" a DBT? Positive results can and are obtained. We have referred to the historical tests on the ABX site (now on the pcavtech site) often enough, and you have evidently never bothered to look at the results or you could never make such a statement.

    Again, where do you get the idea we expect certainty out of statistical results? Come on, show us! Show a little intellectual honesty.

    jj and mtry think of each other in a positive manner, BTW.

    And what have you got against psychics? I have nothing against them a priori, just that they don't seem to be able to verify their claims when put to the test.
  • 01-20-2004, 12:25 AM
    maxg
    hmmm....

    Well for what it is worth the tagline for Mtry was only there because I know he is very keen on dbt testing as a means of establishing whether something is a real effect or a placebo effect.

    I too, have an aversion to people using expressions such as "life force" as it is a phrase that has no meaning to me. I just read the article and it hit a chord with me. Maybe there is something to it - maybe not - I am not going to call it either way.

    Mtry - this is the second or third time I have posted a link you cant get to, whilst others can. Are we on incompatible systems or something? As for his post the jist is not really anti-digital as the headline implies - it is more anti-PCM. He refers to using music in the treatment of patients (stress reduction and the like) and how, come digital, he observed the oposite effect from the one he used to get. In other words Digital music increased stress levels rather than decreased them as he found analogue to do. Actually he first observed this on digital recordings on vinyl and only later on CD's when they came out.

    He updates the original article at the end to say that he now thinks it is not digital that is at fault as he has observed SACD having the same effect as original analogue recordings.
  • 01-20-2004, 07:06 AM
    FLZapped
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by maxg
    http://www.diamondcenter.net/digitalstress.html

    OK - the guy is both barking mad and making a sales pitch but he might, just might, be on to something.

    Mtry - check out his DBT references too.....

    Agree on both counts, it's all to sell some supplement product:

    "After many years of research I have at last formulated a supplement combination called LIFE ENERGY PLUS™ which appears to alleviate many of the effects of PCM "

    He lists a NY address, however, two different searches show there is no John Diamond, MD, listed in South Salem, NY.

    Hark, I hear a duck and it isn't from AFLAK......

    -Bruce
  • 01-20-2004, 07:13 AM
    rb122
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by maxg
    hmmm....

    Well for what it is worth the tagline for Mtry was only there because I know he is very keen on dbt testing as a means of establishing whether something is a real effect or a placebo effect.

    I too, have an aversion to people using expressions such as "life force" as it is a phrase that has no meaning to me. I just read the article and it hit a chord with me. Maybe there is something to it - maybe not - I am not going to call it either way.

    Mtry - this is the second or third time I have posted a link you cant get to, whilst others can. Are we on incompatible systems or something? As for his post the jist is not really anti-digital as the headline implies - it is more anti-PCM. He refers to using music in the treatment of patients (stress reduction and the like) and how, come digital, he observed the oposite effect from the one he used to get. In other words Digital music increased stress levels rather than decreased them as he found analogue to do. Actually he first observed this on digital recordings on vinyl and only later on CD's when they came out.

    He updates the original article at the end to say that he now thinks it is not digital that is at fault as he has observed SACD having the same effect as original analogue recordings.

    I don't necessarily believe this article but I can't dismiss it out of hand, either. It wouldn't surprise me if it were true. It certainly increases MY stress when I hear tonal imbalances on CD's :)

    I believe Mark Levinson did a similar study/test or something and reached a similar conclusion. I'm not sure what Dr Diamond's agenda might be, if any, but I think we can reasonably conclude what Mr Levinson's is. Be that as it may, digital recordings from PCM are woefully distorted, at least the many I've heard usually are. That's stressful to someone who is used to hearing undistorted live music or its faithful reproduction on vinyl.
  • 01-20-2004, 10:12 AM
    jbangelfish
    makes sense to me
    Maybe the guy is nuts, maybe he's trying to make money. Maybe all us vinyl heads are nuts but I can live with it. Vinyl sounds more real than CD in nearly every instance for me.
    I have digital master recordings on vinyl that don't sound as good as the original vinyl. Why is this? At 5 or 6 times the original cost, I'm not getting my money's worth and now seek old sealed or mint vinyl when I can find it.
    Digital seems to measure perfect while sounding like crap. Makes no sense. The listening fatigue with CD is very real. SACD seems to have discovered something to make it more complete. I have no experience with it yet.
    Bill
  • 01-20-2004, 12:49 PM
    DMK
    Original post title sure jumps out at you!
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jbangelfish
    Maybe the guy is nuts, maybe he's trying to make money. Maybe all us vinyl heads are nuts but I can live with it. Vinyl sounds more real than CD in nearly every instance for me.
    I have digital master recordings on vinyl that don't sound as good as the original vinyl. Why is this? At 5 or 6 times the original cost, I'm not getting my money's worth and now seek old sealed or mint vinyl when I can find it.
    Digital seems to measure perfect while sounding like crap. Makes no sense. The listening fatigue with CD is very real. SACD seems to have discovered something to make it more complete. I have no experience with it yet.
    Bill

    Not that I "hate" digital - I just wish the sound would live up to the specs. I've heard a lot of arguments/excuses for why redbook digital sound is so compromised. The RE's are blamed, usually. The jury is still out on whether it's simply a musically limited medium or not, compared to vinyl. Measurements are a great place to start when considering a component or a playback medium but they aren't infallible. So far, they've missed the mark on redbook CD. There's something either not measured that should be or something that is measured that isn't measured correctly.

    The SACD's that I've been buying are indeed superior to their RBCD counterparts in every conceivable way. Someone posted that it was probably due to superior mastering and not an inherent shortcoming in the 16/44.1 medium. Theoretically, this makes sense, both from a measurement point of view (which I don't comprehend) and the point of view that Sony and Phillips lose their revenues from RBCD and so now need a new medium to make money from (which I comprehend very well!). If the superior mastering theory is true and the same sound could be done on RBCD, the rest of the world needs to be brought up to speed on how to master correctly. That said, I have some very nice sounding CD's in my collection - just not very many and although the best of them rival vinyl and even surpass it in certain areas, overall the LP is the medium to beat when it comes to natural, undistorted, "live" sound. The CD can't compete. OTOH, I still enjoy CD for what it is - a compact, portable, a decent replication, robust medium. Plus, I can listen while doing other things since I don't have to get up to turn the LP over. And it's not like the sound is horrible, at least not all the time!
  • 01-20-2004, 08:20 PM
    mtrycraft
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kelsci
    http://www.diamondcenter.net/digitalstress.htm

    Mtry, I tried the link and got the site. The above is the copy of what I got in the address column which appears to be the same as what MAXG had on his post.


    Thanks. It is working today. The mystery of cyberspace :)
  • 01-20-2004, 08:22 PM
    mtrycraft
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Geoffcin
    This guy should be selling cables.

    Yes, he is the equivalent of a cable salesman. A bunch of feelgood nonsense.
    Although music can be relaxing to some, puts one in a certain mood.
  • 01-20-2004, 08:27 PM
    mtrycraft
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rb122
    I don't necessarily believe this article but I can't dismiss it out of hand, either. It wouldn't surprise me if it were true. It certainly increases MY stress when I hear tonal imbalances on CD's :)

    I believe Mark Levinson did a similar study/test or something and reached a similar conclusion. I'm not sure what Dr Diamond's agenda might be, if any, but I think we can reasonably conclude what Mr Levinson's is. Be that as it may, digital recordings from PCM are woefully distorted, at least the many I've heard usually are. That's stressful to someone who is used to hearing undistorted live music or its faithful reproduction on vinyl.


    How could it be true? How could there be anything to it? After all, your speakers don't respond to 0s or 1s but to an analog signal, just as analog as it is recorded or comes off of the instruments.
  • 01-20-2004, 08:37 PM
    mtrycraft
    Well for what it is worth the tagline for Mtry was only there because I know he is very keen on dbt testing as a means of establishing whether something is a real effect or a placebo effect.



    Yes, thanks :) It got my attension :)
    Unfortunately I missed the DBT data you are referring to. But, just because he claims that doesn't mean anything.

    If he did in fact find something this dramatic effect, it should have been published in a quality Journal, not what he has done. Similar to a Dr Hawksford a number of years agou about an "Essex Echo" a dramatic proclamation, yet not published in a Journal.


    Mtry - this is the second or third time I have posted a link you cant get to, whilst others can. Are we on incompatible systems or something?


    Wish I could answer you. It is working today though, thanks :)


    As for his post the jist is not really anti-digital as the headline implies - it is more anti-PCM.

    That is even worse to single out one digital method over another. That alone would imply ignorance. But, the original article was written in 1980, no SACD, DSD on the market, only PCM.

    He refers to using music in the treatment of patients (stress reduction and the like)

    That I can understand. Music can have an effect on people. Why, it even can make them cry at times.

    [/b]He updates the original article at the end to say that he now thinks it is not digital that is at fault as he has observed SACD having the same effect as original analogue recordings.[/b]

    Missed that part. Obviously a flawed and biased opinion, nothing more on his part.

    Oh, I didn't see the DBT you indicated I should look out for.
  • 01-21-2004, 05:13 AM
    rb122
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    How could it be true? How could there be anything to it? After all, your speakers don't respond to 0s or 1s but to an analog signal, just as analog as it is recorded or comes off of the instruments.

    I don't know. Pehaps the 0's and 1's are distorting the analog signal beyond what we have been able to measure so far. A distortion of the analog signal to our ears would be akin to listening to someone singing out of tune. I wonder if Diamond and Levinson have found something that might explain "listener fatigue", a term that has been thrown around in the audio world when speakers are too prominent in the treble or when one is listening to CD. There's no listener fatigue with live music nor with vinyl, as I understand the term, but I do find that often with CD, I'm less than comfortable with the sound and can't exactly explain why.
  • 01-21-2004, 07:25 AM
    Worf101
    FDA must shut this guy down....
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    Thanks. It is working today. The mystery of cyberspace :)

    Cause the link ain't woikin' today. I tend to be skeptical of most things sold by "ballyhoo" as opposed to the inherent quality of the product. But I do know that certain speakers cause me ear fatigue and certain ones don't. I don't know which will at the start so I don't believe it's a bias or predisposition. Anything more than that... I can't say. :o

    Da Worfster
  • 01-21-2004, 05:22 PM
    mtrycraft
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Worf101
    But I do know that certain speakers cause me ear fatigue and certain ones don't. I don't know which will at the start so I don't believe it's a bias or predisposition. Anything more than that... I can't say. :o

    Da Worfster

    But is that caused by PCM digital and not SDS.SACD?
    Maybe on espeaker has horrendous frequency distortion/response?
  • 01-22-2004, 05:17 AM
    maxg
    Well Mtry....
    I had a re-scan through the article and the reference to DBT's is vague enough to be meaningless.

    I have no doubt that this is very much a sales pitch and I am seriously put off by some of the "new-age" terminology, however....

    There can be little doubt that there are many people out there that feel that there is something wrong with CD sound generically. This is not just audiophile lunatics. My wife, for example, finds CD music disconcerting at times and is unable to explain why - she simply prefers the sound of vinyl.

    Judging by the number of CD tweaks and mods out there she is not alone. There is a ready market for "removing the digital nasties" on CD players from tube output stages to external DACS, cables, green markers and who knows what else. That some of these are "snake oil" is not the point. Their pitch is sufficient to make sales, which means that the market is receptive to it.

    The analog music to digital recording back to analogue sound waves is a very "unnatural" process. Different people may indeed show different susceptibilites to how they react to this process.

    Further. Lets remember that 16 bit / 44.1 KHz (why not 48KHz? - never understood that one) is somewhat aging technology. the best we could do in 1979 but now there are much higher word lengths and sampling rates to play with.

    If there are people sensitive to the digitization process then it does make sense that the better the process (the higher the resolution) the lower the number of people that would be sensitive to it. This implies that both SACD (with its 2.8 MHz sampling - although that figure is a bit of a fudge) and DVDa (192KHz/24 bit) should prove to have a higher level of acceptability amongst those that claim problems with CD.

    This does appear to be the case.
  • 01-22-2004, 09:23 AM
    rb122
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by maxg
    If there are people sensitive to the digitization process then it does make sense that the better the process (the higher the resolution) the lower the number of people that would be sensitive to it. This implies that both SACD (with its 2.8 MHz sampling - although that figure is a bit of a fudge) and DVDa (192KHz/24 bit) should prove to have a higher level of acceptability amongst those that claim problems with CD.

    This does appear to be the case.

    I've never really understood the term "high resolution" with respect to audio. Does a higher sampling rate mean higher resolution? Where does vinyl fall into this scheme?

    I also don't really understand the khz/mhz "upgrade" with respect to sound below those figures. Surely 22.05 khz should be sufficient for humans. Then why do the much lower frequencies distort on CD? Does resolution really have to do with ALL frequencies? HF's are troublesome to a degree on redbook CD which would account for the tension people feel when listening. But I'm much more susceptible to the lower treble through the midrange frequencies. Tonal anomalies with instruments, grain, sibilance, etc are bigger offenders than some HF stress causing noise.

    Do any of those digital sound improvement thingamajigs actually work?
  • 01-23-2004, 02:09 PM
    Feanor
    Does my memory serve me?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rb122
    ... HF's are troublesome to a degree on redbook CD which would account for the tension people feel when listening. But I'm much more susceptible to the lower treble through the midrange frequencies. Tonal anomalies with instruments, grain, sibilance, etc are bigger offenders than some HF stress causing noise. ...

    Weren't you the person who recorded vinyl onto CD-R and admitted you couldn't hear the difference between that result and the original? What does that suggest?

    I suggest that it suggests that the "problem" with CDs is the way they were recorded & mastered, not the medium itself i.e. not PCM 16/44.1. I have quite a few great CD that don't cause me any tension. I have some that do; I have a few LPs that do too.
  • 01-23-2004, 02:50 PM
    DMK
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feanor
    Weren't you the person who recorded vinyl onto CD-R and admitted you couldn't hear the difference between that result and the original? What does that suggest?

    I suggest that it suggests that the "problem" with CDs is the way they were recorded & mastered, not the medium itself i.e. not PCM 16/44.1. I have quite a few great CD that don't cause me any tension. I have some that do; I have a few LPs that do too.

    Well, it suggests to ME that he listen more carefully next time! :). I've done the same experiment with different results but they are very, very close. So your point is well taken. OTOH, what does it suggest about CD when the best sounding recordings are made in a consumers home using a sub-$1000 CD recorder? Perhaps it's not the medium but what good IS the medium if it doesn't deliver? Of course, if rbcd has all this potential and doesn't live up to it, what good is a higher resolution medium going to be?

    I wonder if vinyl would sound as bad as rbcd if it were still THE medium. In all likelihood, it would. Many of those LP's from the early 80's were pretty bad. We vinyl hounds are probably chasing a pipedream, not because of the CD medium but because of the lack of care taken in the recording/mastering process. But there are other folks aside from RB that suggest that PCM is an inherently limited medium and not up to SACD standards. As such, I'm exploring that avenue and I have yet to be disappointed with the sound. If a medium that inarguably measures better than rbcd can also deliver the sonic goods by somehow forcing RE's to do a better job, the goal of superior sound has been accomplished. I just wish we could all stop making excuses about WHY rbcd sounds so bad and just get some decent results out of digital on a widespread basis.
  • 01-23-2004, 06:32 PM
    RGA
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Pat D
    when put to the test.

    No! They are being put to "A" test not "THE" test. The latter is valid the former is somethig else.