Objectivity without measurements

[The Computer Audiophile]

17 minutes ago, hopkins said:

@Seraph please explain how the first post in a topic can be off-topic

He’s looking for measurements to backup his “off topic” vote. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

35 minutes ago, alfe said:

 

You keep spreading this marketing BS , again some info about reflectivity:

https://www.edmundoptics.com/knowledge-center/application-notes/optics/metallic-mirror-coatings/

Performance is about the wavelength and silver have a better reflectivity!

Remember objective-fi.

ps: MAM discs are not gold but silicium alloy

That page you linked to was full of marketing. It may be better to point out the appropriate stuff rather than direct us to several thousand words. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, alfe said:

Perfect demonstration of objectivity without measurement!

You’re joking right?

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, alfe said:

the graphs are still valid  and silver have the best reflectivity from 500nm to 800nm.

Is reflectivity what’s being touted as the reason for sonic differences and the greater reflectivity be better sonically?

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, alfe said:

Sonically I will put the flatness of the substrate first.

Then birefringence

Then stamper groove

 

.

Back to my question please. 
 

You directed us to a bunch of marketing material with graphs about reflectivity. 
 

1. Did someone suggest that reflectivity is the reason for sonic differences?

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, alfe said:

On going discussion with Alex...

 

I think I must be blind. I still don't see anything related to reflectivity.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, alfe said:

   On 12/16/2017 at 12:37 PM,  marce said: 

There is no mechanism with digital storage to store any noise present on the signal, unlike analogue where the noise and the information are part of the same waveform (digital stores a representation of the final analogue waveform in a packet of information) and analogue recording stores the noise as part of the signal.

 

Marc

Please explain how the pairs of music files burned to a CD-R  , that were each ripped by a different Optical device,(USB powered external, and Internal BR writer) and saved to different locations, . can sound quite different on playback, despite the CD when ripped showing identical .md5 checksums for each pair of files. As well as this, the files burned to a MAM Gold, exhibited even greater audible differences than those burned to a " silver" CD-R.

There is obviously something different about each of the pairs of files, or they wouldn't sound different.

I am unable to post the report that I received about them, but I will PM a FYI ONLY copy of this report on request.

There is obviously something different about each of the pairs of files, or they wouldn't sound different.

Alex

 

Ok, I'm not blind. You're pushing objective information to make a point in the hopes that nobody actually reads it because it doesn't make your point. You linked to a marketing website (very subjectivist thing to do) and then said it made objective points about reflectivity, when you were challenged. Nobody here said that reflectivity mattered. Yet, you continue to push reflectivity. 

 

You're making objectivists look bad.

 

If Alex claimed that gold discs were better because their reflectivity was better, then I can see why you'd post about reflectivity. He never said that. You're claiming one material has more reflectivity therefore he is wrong. However, is more or less reflectivity better for the claims he never made? Is there a middle ground with respect to reflectivity. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, sandyk said:

  I have already posted a copy of the report by Martin Colloms back in a previous reply.

Oh boy, here we go again.

[The Computer Audiophile]

19 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Alfe just quoted me about this. Did you expect me to ignore this dig at me ?  #57

Actually yes. It would be really nice. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, jabbr said:

My take: somehow differences in CDs causing SQ differences got brought up in this supposedly objective thread.

 

One of the *worlds experts* on CD-R got baited into commenting, and he posted some links ... with objective data... no doubt @alfe has well deserved opinions on various CD-R but bringing up the topic in the first place, without objective data, nor objective reasoning,  was inappropriate for this thread in this subforum... I can’t blame @alfe for getting baited to responding, nor was the response derogatory nor personal ... just my perspective 🤷🏻‍♂️
 

This is a meta thread about objectivity without measurement: to be very clear, there is theoretical physics vs experimental physics. This thread would be about the former. 

I just don't get why he was pushing reflectivity when nobody here was pushing reflectivity.  

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, andrewinukm said:

Why not just tske a chill pill & laugh over it?

I wish everyone did this before many things in life.