Believers VS. nonbelievers???? GEEzzzzz

Jostler3@hotmail.com, the explanation given to me concerning the scientific theory of the "green pen" treatment is as follows. The CD, while spinning does not always lie absolutely flat and perfect. This causes some deflection to the beam of the reader laser (scattering of an otherwise precise beam). The green marker is the opposite color of the laser, and therefore is more efficient at absorbing the scattered beam than the reflective silver finish of the disk. I suspect that the performance gains of the green treatment vary wildly, depending on the manufacturer and condition of the CD, the design and type of transport, and possibly even the contractor who provided the laser itself. I hope this takes out the Voodoo. It makes perfect sense that if you can reduce laser scatter, there will be fewer errors for the circuit to have to deal with. I heard the performance gain long before I knew of this explanation, but I am the type of person who does not need an explanation to enjoy the tweak. I ask years later at a CES show, more out of curiosity than anything else. Best to you, good listening!

Jostler, did I ever say, that I was sure, that what I hear is auditory and nothing else? I think not. We are all influenced by all sorts of factors all of the time. That's why experimental setups take such painstaking preparation, and even then often enough we cannot be sure. But you know all that much better than I do. All I ask, is to not make us out to be more stupid, than in fact we may truly well be. I don't pretend to "know" anything at all in the field of audio. All I can do, is to try to describe what I percieve and to grope for some sense in it. You however, no offense meant, strike me to be much more of a believer than I will ever be, in that you seem to maintain that science has an answer to all. Besides, how will you know what I or anybody else hears. Of course you know, what can be heard and what not, otherwise you would not come to such statements as above. But how can you be sure, that you are right? Slowly I come to the conclusion, that you and your likes - and
I do pay you probably more respect than vice versa - operate from model of reality, a model which is often close, yes almost identical with reality, but never quite so. This model is safe ground, and it will grow in scope and refinement, as science progresses. But the gap will remain. The more we know, the more questions arise, the more obvious the gap becomes. I suppose, its also a question of temperament. I feel more at home by being fascinated by what I don't understand and grappling with it. Its obvious, that I'll make a lot of mistakes and be lead up the garden path by all sorts of factors. But its fun, I don't have to know better all the time. Respectfully,

No, Albert, that explanation is the voodoo. If it were right, CD-ROMs, for which error avoidance is far more critical, would all be green.

If all of the CD's and CD ROMs manufactured were totally green, the reflective surface would be significantly reduced, and the ability of the laser to accurately pick up, would be diminished. Another example would be a solid colored filter on the lens of a camera reducing the efficiency of the films ability to record light. Solid green would make no sense, especially when the jitter reduction provided by a small amount of green on the edges of CD's is already debated. In other words, most systems would be much worse with the totally green treatment than what is the standard reflective color.

Detlof: I'm trying to draw a distinction between two assertions:
1."I like the sound of vinyl better than CDs."
2 "Vinyl is better than CD because..."
You're right--I cannot know what you hear, nor can I know what it is you want to hear or think you ought to hear. Now, as long as you're sticking to statements like #1, that's fine. But once you start trying to explain what you hear in more universal terms, you're playing on your opponents' home turf. Some posts in this and related threads seem to suggest that science has failed because the poster prefers the distinctive sound of an earlier technology. But science isn't trying to satisfy your preference because it can't--it doesn't know what that preference is, and each of us has different preferences. That said, many products are engineered to appeal to audiophiles with particular preferences, and you and I and everybody else buys them for exactly that reason--we like the sound. Nothing wrong with that. So why do people feel the need to justify their purchasing decisions by trashing science?