[Codifus]

wrote:
On Jul 29, 6:23 pm, codifus wrote:
On Jul 28, 9:08 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

"codifus" wrote in message

OK. I believe it so strongly and I'm prepared to prove it
with the tests you outlined.
You're going to try some bias-controlled listening test?
Im am totally willing. Dick Pierce outlined a perfect setup.

No, I didn't. I outlined merely ONE setup as a starting
point to help design an experiment. There's any number
of conrols that need to be put in place to ensure that
as many variables are controlled or understood as
possible.
OK. Good enough, then.


Does it meet with your approval?

Do you understand why I suggested what I did?
Because my suggestion wasn't as thorough a test. Your's was better, and
I'm all for it.


Now, let's say that I guess evertyhing correctly, would
my observaton then become fact?
The phrase "Scientific fact" is an oxymoron. All findings of
science are
provisional, and only relelvant until we find out something bettter.
OK, here' we go. I phrased that incorrectly. Let's say I get the
correct answer for everything, what would you all still have to be
skeptical about?

You entrie explanation as to the cause is, to put
it frankly, ridiculous. You, on the one hand, state
that you're no expert, and on the other you then
hold forth and profer "explanantions" for physical
causes which are out beyond the left field bleachers.
Is there something wrong with that? Like I said, I am no expert and then
went to to detail what I think is happening.


I would like to get this done in a definitive fashion
that everyone agrees on.

That's assuming "everyone" thinks the rather large
amount of effort is worth it.
Cynicism does that to people.


To be honest and meaning no disrespect,
You describe my attempt at an explanation as "beyond the left field
bleachers," "laughably naive" and mean no disrespect, huh? Funny.
your
intransigence and refusal to entertainthe
possibility that you, as an admitted NON-expert
in the field, are either unwilling or unable to
consider the possibility that your conclusions
and you explanations are faulty. You offer what
is, to be honest, almost laughably naive explanations
of how electromangetics work without being able
or willing to see the obvious self-contradictions and
flaws in your science, and then run and hide behind
the apron of "we don't know everything."
By saying I am no expert and also saying that I do not know the answer
means I acknowledge my own weakness. Don't you get it? These self
contradictions are only coming about because I am trying to explain
something that I observed, but lack the knowledge to clarify it.


We don't need to know everything to recognize when
something is horribly and fatally flawed.

And what you don't realize is MANY of us have
gone through this very same set of claims, MANY
times before, and they have been found wanting
EVERY time.

Why are you any different?



For the sake of clarity, the only magnetism we are concerned with is
within the audio path, the most of which is in the speaker, crossover,
voice coil etc.

Then tell us the following:

1. What parts of the speaker ARE magnetized?

2. How did they get that way?

3. If they ARE that way, how and why does it cause
the problem you're claiming?

4. How and why does this "magic" CD do its work?

5. If the CD ONLY works once, as you claim, what is
preventing the speaker from taking on the original
problem again?

I don't know how or why it happens, I just know that I have had
speakers that have lost their ability to image properly. Once
Demagicked, they recovered.

Maybe, well, it's "magic."

Here's my very non-technical, non expert opinion on the
matter: it is understood that all electronic components
do not behave ideally. Far from it.
Wrong. Electronic components including the resistors and capactors that
tweeks obsess over, do in fact generally behave as ideally as is
necessary
to provide sonically-transparent operation.
Actually, you are WRONG. How does something, in fact, GENERALLY behave
ideally? It either does or doesn't. So say it. Don't use this vague
statement to try to get by.

Look, you have already admitted that you are not
an expert. WHy do you then insist on talking as if
you are.
No, I'm not an expert. Like I said, I'm just trying to find the answer
in an explanation.


What was stated, and is ABSOLUTELY correct, is
that "ideal behavior" is not a black-and-white issues.
A component, for example, could have gossly non-
ideal property that, for the application it is used in,
is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Take an example that
is trivial: I have a resistor component that exhibits
some grossly non-linear behavior at temperatures
above 75C. If the temperature never exceeds 50C,
then its non-ideal behavior above 75C is COMPLETELY
irrelevant.
OK. But to say that a behavior that is described generally as a fact
just doesn't follow with how facts are defined. Facts either are or
aren't. Facts are not "generally" anything.

Uh-oh, here comes another analogy. Can you handle it? Explaining a fact
as a general behavior is.....wait for it ......LIKE saying that PI is
exactly the approximate value of 3.14159


Or consider a capacitor that has .025 uH of lead
inductance and the equivalent of about 5 MOhms
of leakage resistance. Non-ideal, right? But if that
capacitor is used in a ciscuit where it's bypassed
by a 5 kOhm resistor and never sees any frequecies
above 20 kHz, the non-ideal indictance and leakage
resistance has NO relevance on its behavior in the
circuit.

Yes, even in my limited understanding, I do understand that.

And both you and the manufacturer of the "magic"
CD have NEVER ONCE offered ANY credible
explanation of:

1. The very existance of these "static magnetic"
fields in components,

2. That IF these "static magnetic" fields did, indeed
exists, how they got there,

3. That if they exist, how and why they have a
deleterious effect as claimed on the audio,

4. How and why this "magic" CD corrects the
problems which you have never demonstrated
even exist to begin with.

Many materials just don't have any remanance,
and pure copper is one such
material.
And all speakers are made of just copper, right?

Look, if you're going to be silly bordering on the
point of insulting, then you can argue with yourself.

What's your point here?

Are you insisting that all components of a speaker
must have their static magnetic field removed?


Now you are just exxagerating my claims out of
frustration to make them look even more ridiculous.
Please explain how the speaker would work after
that?

Please explain that if it is the capacitors and
inductors and resistors and terminals that are
getting this "static magnetic field," and your "magic
CD" gets rid of it, why does this "static magnetic field"
not INSTANTLY return in the presence of the leakage
field resulting fromthe close proximity of the speaker
magnet?

I don't need proof, just the possibility. My observations show that
something is happening.

And, for myself, I am not disputing that observation.

Rather I am disputing your totally bogus attempts
and invoking bad physics to explain it, that you are
utterly unwilling to entertain the possibility that your
explanations are wrong, and that you are unwilling
or unable to accept the very STRONG possibility that
tyou have failed to identify and eliminate in ANY
credible fashion whatsoever alternate explanations
for your observation, INCLUDING but not limited to
expectation bias, suggestability, demonstrably poor
detailed auditory memory, exceptionally poor
experimental control, and much more.

No, I am perfectly willing to accept that my explanation is wrong. The
reason I put it out there in the first place was to find out what is
happening. Like I said, I observed it. Everything else after that was an
attempt to explain it. No way did I try to make it look like I was
describing exactly what happened. I was trying to describe exactly what
happened. My attempt was very detailed, and so what's wrong with that?



Earlier, you said:

A copper wire, for example. The amount it may store
would be miniscule, but it may hold some.

You have a number of problems he

1. You ASSUME "it may hold some." Your entire
premise seems to be based on that assumption.
But what if your assumption is WRONG?

2. You assume that if it DID "hold some," that is
MUST have some audible effect. But what if
your assumption is wrong?

3. You assume that if it DID hold some and if it
DID have some audible effect, that the effect
would lead to your observation. But whiat is
your assumption is wrong?

4. You assume that if it did hold some and if it
did have some audible effect and if that audible
effect lead to your observation, the "magic CD"
would correct it. But what if your assumption was
wrong.

Aren't there 2 possible outcomes from an "if" ? I could be right and I
could be wrong.

So far I've seen people telling me I'm wrong because of all their
experience. There have been explanations as to why my technical
explanation may not be true, but there has been nothing to explain why I
observed the change. Yes, it is up to me to explain it. I can not. And
because I can not, therefore it did not happen? That kind of logic fails me.


Don't doubt it. DId you also know that water can kill you if you drink
too much of it?

It appears you have failed to see the point of your own
analogy.

All I am saying is that when a speaker has been suffuciently thrown
out of its specification such that it fails the mono test I keep
mentioning, playing the demagic CD sets it back. Music doesn't.

Speakers can be thown "sufficiently out of their own
specifications" by ANY number of means. Changing
environmental factors such as tempearature and
humidity will result in large changes. The temperature
of the magnet and voice voil make a large difference,
Letting a speaker sit unplayed for a period of time
will result in changes in its performance. Playing a
speaker at an elevated level will change its performance.

Have you, or anyone, ever experienced a pair of speakers that, even when
playing a monophonic source, sound as if they are completely out of
synch with each other? They are playing the same exact source, but
there's no coherence even when they are right next to each other. The
ghost center image that is supposed to be sensed quite distinctly is
just awash in vagueness?


I may be wrong on the technical explanation, but I hope
its enough to convey the idea I'm trying to get across.
What's coming accross is a basic priniciple of snake-oil audio - a
complete
lack of understanding of the importance of quantifcation.
I don't undertstand it, but I definitely heard it.

Look, I do believe that some audio in the high-end is snake oil. Gold
plated CDs, Stones placed on top of stereos, Monster cable etc.

But then there's the other side of hifi, like those $10,000 turntables
and the $100,000 speakers. I can see that extreme engineering went into
those products. In the case of turntables, it's seems to be all about
minimizing all extraneous vibration such that the only vibration picked
up is that from the needle riding over the record grooves. The heavy
glass platters are there to help suppress motor vibrations. The funny
shaped and expensive tonearms have the purpose of eliminating all
possible resonance that may occur from the needle being attached to it.
Interesting stuff.

With speakers, the use of very expensive components in the crossovers,
the shapes of the cabinets, tweeters made of Diamond, all in an effort
for the speaker to only reproduce the sounds from the electrical signal
and nothing else. Reflections, diffraction, etc are gone to extreme
lengths to eliminate in these high end speakers. Fascinating.


The problem with high end audio is that the difference that they make
can be so subtle that it is quite hard to validate in ABX tests. I do
not believe that if something fails to be observed in an ABX test, then
it doesn't exist. It may or may not exist but we have to find a way to
dismiss it with some validating test other than abx.



Maybe you did, maybe you didn't. I'm not going to
dispute whather you did or didn't, if for no other reason
than it gets into a useless argument with no possibility
of resolution. For one thing, your experimental design is
SO poor, no real conclusion could be drawn.

But you have chosen to hold forth on a TECHNICAL
explanation that is so TECHNICALLY bogus that
it throws your whole claim into serious credibitity
meltdown.

Like I said, you play the Demagic CD as loud as you comfrotably can.
The louder it is the more effective it is.

And what have you done to eliminate ALL other
possibe explananations?

Because it was the only thing I did.

No, it's not, and this is further evidence that you do
NOT understand it. It;s substantially different in at
least one important factor: the field generated by a
degausser if MILLIONS of time stronger than the field
generated by the currents inside your audio system.
It HAS to be to overcome the coercivity of the magnetic
material in the tape. If the impressed field DOES NOT
exceed a critical threshold by a wide margin, no change
in the magnetization of the material occurs. And a few
microamps of signal passing through an audio system,
even a few amps passing through a voice coil is FAR too
small to work.
Give me a freaking break! A rocket ship and a cruise ship are both
what? Ships. Yet the speeds with which they travel are different by
orders of magnitude. Once warp drive is invented, you know what
they'll call the vessel that carries people across the galaxies at
those speeds? A starship. These examples go to show that an analogy
can apply even though one factor may different by an extremely large
amount. It's the same basic...

IN a word, kind sir, b*llsh*t.
Here I am trying to suggest a simple analogy and you "respectfully" tell
me b*llsh*t. You're a smart individual who has a very good command of
language and that's what you resort to. Why not say something like "all
known laws of physics do not agree with your observation." or "It hasn't
been proven, and I, quite frankly, don't believe you either."

There are other far reaching analogies, like the description of an atom
being compared to the solar system, the sun as compared to God,
computers being compared to the the human brain etc.

Those analogies are bit of a stretch and I thought, and still think,
that mine was quite good, but hey.


You CLEARLY have no the slightest clue what you
are talking about. You have NO idea about the VERY
non-linear process of magnetization in materials.
You come up with preposterous "analogies" and
"extrapolations" which have NO physical analog and
in fact, are quite defintiely in complete contradiction
of demonstrated physical behavior, and you hold on
to them, for dear life.

No, give yourself a break, here, and stop being silly.

You analogies are nice, neat, comfortable, simple,
and do a good job of explaining what you believe.
Thay are also wrong.

It's as simple as that.

No, not really. I'm more than happy for my attempt at an explanation to
be declared wrong. I still want to learn why I observed what I observed.
All I keep getting is WRONG WRONG WRONG.


CD

[bob]

On Aug 5, 1:51*pm, Codifus wrote:


By saying I am no expert and also saying that I do not know the answer
means I acknowledge my own weakness. Don't you get it? These self
contradictions are only coming about because I am trying to explain
something that I observed, but lack *the knowledge to clarify it.

Fine, but you misidentify the problem here. The problem is not that
you have observed something for which there is no explanation. There
is an explanation. The problem is that you don't like that
explanation, and want a different explanation. You need to live in a
different universe for that to work, I'm afraid.

snip

Aren't there 2 possible outcomes from an "if" ? I could be right and I
could be wrong.

True, but now there's only one possible outcome left.

So far I've seen people telling me I'm wrong because of all their
experience. There have been explanations as to why my technical
explanation may not be true, but there has been nothing to explain why I
observed the change.

Expectation bias. There, now there's an explanation.

snip

* The problem with high end audio is that the difference that they make
can be so subtle that it is quite hard to validate in ABX tests. I do
not believe that if something fails to be observed in an ABX test, then
it doesn't exist. It may or may not exist but we have to find a way to
dismiss it with some validating test other than abx.

What you *believe* about ABX is irrelevant. Your lack of expertise is
showing again. Consider the evidence against you:

1. There is no physical means by which the effect you claim to have
observed could occur.

2. There is no measurable difference between the DAC outputs before
and after treatment.

3. You cannot hear a difference before and after treatment in a DBT.

That's three strikes.

snip

And what have you done to eliminate ALL other
possibe explananations?

Because it was the only thing I did.

Your lack of expertise is showing again. See "expectation bias,"
above.

snip

No, not really. I'm more than happy for my attempt at an explanation to
be declared wrong. I still want to learn why I observed what I observed.
All I keep getting is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

That's because you are.

bob

[[email protected]]

On Aug 5, 1:51?pm, Codifus wrote:

? The problem with high end audio is that the difference that they make
can be so subtle that it is quite hard to validate in ABX tests. I do
not believe that if something fails to be observed in an ABX test, then
it doesn't exist. It may or may not exist but we have to find a way to
dismiss it with some validating test other than abx.

The problems in high end audio have little to do with effects about where there
is a 'controversy' that an effect exists or not. THE REAL problems have to do
with microphones, recording techniques, speakers, and listening room acoustics.
The effects those things produce are HUGE compared to alleged and real differences
between say, modern amplifiers, silly tweaks and etc.

IOW, sweat the big stuff. It's really much more productive. It would also
make this place more interesting.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


The problems in high end audio have little to do with
effects about where there is a 'controversy' that an
effect exists or not. THE REAL problems have to do with
microphones, recording techniques, speakers, and
listening room acoustics. The effects those things
produce are HUGE compared to alleged and real differences
between say, modern amplifiers, silly tweaks and etc.

Agreed.

IOW, sweat the big stuff. It's really much more
productive. It would also
make this place more interesting.

One can only imagine where we would be today if all of the money that has
been wasted in the past 30 years on magic cables and components, upsamplers,
and the like had been spent to advance the SOTA of loudspeakers,
microphones, and room acoustics.

[bob]

On Aug 5, 7:48*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

One can only imagine where we would be today if all of the money that has
been wasted in the past 30 years on magic cables and components, upsamplers,
and the like had been spent to advance the SOTA of loudspeakers,
microphones, and room acoustics.

Probably about where we are now, since the people doing good work in
the field are pretty much immune to all this silliness. Somehow, I
don't think Geoff Kait would be designing SOTA speakers today if he
hadn't been distracted by the magic of pebbles.

But many audiophiles would have better-sounding systems today if they
hadn't been so taken in.

bob

[Steven Sullivan]

Codifus wrote:

So far I've seen people telling me I'm wrong because of all their
experience. There have been explanations as to why my technical
explanation may not be true, but there has been nothing to explain why I
observed the change.

Wrong. There is an available explanation for the type of phenomenon you
repot, one that would be absoultely required to be ruled out in any
scientific investigation of your report:

you imagined it.

Your personal incredulity - your belief that you couldn't have imagined
it, it seemed so real -- carries no weight whatsoever.

But then there's the other side of hifi, like those $10,000 turntables
and the $100,000 speakers. I can see that extreme engineering went into
those products. In the case of turntables, it's seems to be all about
minimizing all extraneous vibration such that the only vibration picked
up is that from the needle riding over the record grooves. The heavy
glass platters are there to help suppress motor vibrations. The funny
shaped and expensive tonearms have the purpose of eliminating all
possible resonance that may occur from the needle being attached to it.
Interesting stuff.

With speakers, the use of very expensive components in the crossovers,
the shapes of the cabinets, tweeters made of Diamond, all in an effort
for the speaker to only reproduce the sounds from the electrical signal
and nothing else. Reflections, diffraction, etc are gone to extreme
lengths to eliminate in these high end speakers. Fascinating.

Loudspeakers and turnable/carts are electromechanial devices. Do you
understand what that impluies, reports of audible difference between
them, versus YOUR report of audible difference?


The problem with high end audio is that the difference that they make
can be so subtle that it is quite hard to validate in ABX tests.

If they are audibly subtle, they will be hard to validate by hearing,
PERIOD. That's what 'subtle' means. Singling out ABX in this instance is
disingenuous at best. An sublte difference does NOT become easier to hear
'sighted'.



I do
not believe that if something fails to be observed in an ABX test, then
it doesn't exist.

And an ABX doesn't tell you that..in fact there is no scientific test to
tell you that something 'doesn't exist', tout court. You can only test
whether your hypothesis of difference is supported or not.

It may or may not exist but we have to find a way to
dismiss it with some validating test other than abx.

Please describe what such test would entail..being aware,I hope, that ABX
is not the only double-blind audio comparison method.

And what have you done to eliminate ALL other
possibe explananations?

Because it was the only thing I did.

And it was not sufficient to demonstrate what you thought
it did.


You analogies are nice, neat, comfortable, simple,
and do a good job of explaining what you believe.
Thay are also wrong.

It's as simple as that.

No, not really. I'm more than happy for my attempt at an explanation to
be declared wrong. I still want to learn why I observed what I observed.
All I keep getting is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Here's my explanation: You imagined it.

Your turn, now, to show that I'm wrong.



--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 15:34:32 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

On Aug 5, 1:51?pm, Codifus wrote:

? The problem with high end audio is that the difference that they make
can be so subtle that it is quite hard to validate in ABX tests. I do
not believe that if something fails to be observed in an ABX test, then
it doesn't exist. It may or may not exist but we have to find a way to
dismiss it with some validating test other than abx.

The problems in high end audio have little to do with effects about where
there
is a 'controversy' that an effect exists or not. THE REAL problems have to
do
with microphones, recording techniques, speakers, and listening room
acoustics.
The effects those things produce are HUGE compared to alleged and real
differences
between say, modern amplifiers, silly tweaks and etc.

Amen.

IOW, sweat the big stuff. It's really much more productive. It would also
make this place more interesting.

I agree. But if a guy wants to spend $30,000 - $100,000 on an amplifier that
is sonically indistinguishable from one costing several orders of magnitude
less, that's his prerogative. Pride of ownership is important The problem
comes when this kind of thinking makes the average audiophile believe that he
has to pay that kind of money for the musical enjoyment he craves.

I have heard some people liken expensive, high-end audio equipment to
expensive, high-end sports cars, but the analogy doesn't hold. A Ferrari or a
Lamborghini IS demonstrably better than, for instance, a Mustang that costs
1/10th the price of these other cars and the differences are easy to see and
experience without a double-blind tests. The differences in materials and
build quality are that much better that they are readily apparent and so is
the performance which, in this case, are also readily measurable.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 16:48:12 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

wrote in message


The problems in high end audio have little to do with
effects about where there is a 'controversy' that an
effect exists or not. THE REAL problems have to do with
microphones, recording techniques, speakers, and
listening room acoustics. The effects those things
produce are HUGE compared to alleged and real differences
between say, modern amplifiers, silly tweaks and etc.

Agreed.

IOW, sweat the big stuff. It's really much more
productive. It would also
make this place more interesting.

One can only imagine where we would be today if all of the money that has
been wasted in the past 30 years on magic cables and components, upsamplers,
and the like had been spent to advance the SOTA of loudspeakers,
microphones, and room acoustics.



While I understand your analogy, in the real world, people spending money to
"develop" and market these magic cables and components, upsamplers, and the
like are not usually the same people who are developing speakers, microphones
and room treatments. I doubt if we would be any further along in these
components, but indeed, if the ENERGY wasted on these dubious technologies
had been funneled toward the development of speakers and ancillary equipment
which WOULD have a real effect on what we actually hear, then we would
certainly be ahead of the game.

The problem with all progress is the energy and momentum wasted on "side
trips".

[[email protected]]

On Aug 5, 1:51 pm, Codifus wrote:
wrote:
On Jul 29, 6:23 pm, codifus wrote:
On Jul 28, 9:08 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

"codifus" wrote in message

OK. I believe it so strongly and I'm prepared to prove it
with the tests you outlined.
You're going to try some bias-controlled listening test?
Im am totally willing. Dick Pierce outlined a perfect setup.

No, I didn't. I outlined merely ONE setup as a starting
point to help design an experiment. There's any number
of conrols that need to be put in place to ensure that
as many variables are controlled or understood as
possible.

OK. Good enough, then.

"Sayoing "good enaough, then," doesn't address the
need for controls: it neatly sweeps them under the
rug where they won't do any good.

Does it meet with your approval?
Do you understand why I suggested what I did?

Because my suggestion wasn't as thorough a test.
Your's was better, and I'm all for it.

Let's try it again: do you UNDERSTAND why?

You entrie explanation as to the cause is, to put
it frankly, ridiculous. You, on the one hand, state
that you're no expert, and on the other you then
hold forth and profer "explanantions" for physical
causes which are out beyond the left field bleachers.

Is there something wrong with that? Like I said,
I am no expert and then
went to to detail what I think is happening.

Do you really not see what's "wrong with that?
That does seem to be at the root of the issue
at hand.

What was stated, and is ABSOLUTELY correct, is
that "ideal behavior" is not a black-and-white issues.
A component, for example, could have gossly non-
ideal property that, for the application it is used in,
is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Take an example that
is trivial: I have a resistor component that exhibits
some grossly non-linear behavior at temperatures
above 75C. If the temperature never exceeds 50C,
then its non-ideal behavior above 75C is COMPLETELY
irrelevant.

OK. But to say that a behavior that is described generally as a fact
just doesn't follow with how facts are defined. Facts either are or
aren't. Facts are not "generally" anything.

Could you restate that so that it parses?

Uh-oh, here comes another analogy. Can you handle it? Explaining a fact
as a general behavior is.....wait for it ......LIKE saying that PI is
exactly the approximate value of 3.14159

And, if you're measuring something that requires
a precision of 0.1%, such as then amount of fencing
needed to encompass a corral whose diameter is
100 feet and you need to know to within 2 inches,
then that value of pi is exactly correct.

Your analogy, as a petard, has you well hoisted.

You fail to grasp, it would seem, then needs of the
domain in which you are attempting to apply the
analogies. A failing, to be sure.

Or consider a capacitor that has .025 uH of lead
inductance and the equivalent of about 5 MOhms
of leakage resistance. Non-ideal, right? But if that
capacitor is used in a ciscuit where it's bypassed
by a 5 kOhm resistor and never sees any frequecies
above 20 kHz, the non-ideal indictance and leakage
resistance has NO relevance on its behavior in the
circuit.

Yes, even in my limited understanding, I do understand that.

Then why not modify your analogies and understanding
accordingly?

And both you and the manufacturer of the "magic"
CD have NEVER ONCE offered ANY credible
explanation of:

1. The very existance of these "static magnetic"
fields in components,

2. That IF these "static magnetic" fields did, indeed
exists, how they got there,

3. That if they exist, how and why they have a
deleterious effect as claimed on the audio,

4. How and why this "magic" CD corrects the
problems which you have never demonstrated
even exist to begin with.

Many materials just don't have any remanance,
and pure copper is one such
material.
And all speakers are made of just copper, right?

Look, if you're going to be silly bordering on the
point of insulting, then you can argue with yourself.

What's your point here?

Are you insisting that all components of a speaker
must have their static magnetic field removed?

Now you are just exxagerating my claims out of
frustration to make them look even more ridiculous.

No, those "exagerrations" as you call them are
an inevitable outcome of your claims. They are
"exagerations" to you simply because your analogies
are broken. The fault lies NOT with the outcome, but
with the very nature of your claims and your analogies.

Please explain how the speaker would work after
that?

Please explain that if it is the capacitors and
inductors and resistors and terminals that are
getting this "static magnetic field," and your "magic
CD" gets rid of it, why does this "static magnetic field"
not INSTANTLY return in the presence of the leakage
field resulting fromthe close proximity of the speaker
magnet?

Well?

I don't need proof, just the possibility. My observations show that
something is happening.

And, for myself, I am not disputing that observation.

Rather I am disputing your totally bogus attempts
and invoking bad physics to explain it, that you are
utterly unwilling to entertain the possibility that your
explanations are wrong, and that you are unwilling
or unable to accept the very STRONG possibility that
tyou have failed to identify and eliminate in ANY
credible fashion whatsoever alternate explanations
for your observation, INCLUDING but not limited to
expectation bias, suggestability, demonstrably poor
detailed auditory memory, exceptionally poor
experimental control, and much more.

My attempt was very detailed, and so what's wrong with that?

Other than the fact that you got the technical content
wrong, well, I suppose, nothing. THat suggests that
the technical content, then, has no value.

A copper wire, for example. The amount it may store
would be miniscule, but it may hold some.

You have a number of problems he

1. You ASSUME "it may hold some." Your entire
premise seems to be based on that assumption.
But what if your assumption is WRONG?

2. You assume that if it DID "hold some," that is
MUST have some audible effect. But what if
your assumption is wrong?

3. You assume that if it DID hold some and if it
DID have some audible effect, that the effect
would lead to your observation. But whiat is
your assumption is wrong?

4. You assume that if it did hold some and if it
did have some audible effect and if that audible
effect lead to your observation, the "magic CD"
would correct it. But what if your assumption was
wrong.

Aren't there 2 possible outcomes from an "if" ?
I could be right and I could be wrong.

And you have not provided a SINGLE credible
piece of data that suggests that the outcome
is anything otherv than wrong.

So far I've seen people telling me I'm wrong
because of all their experience. There have
been explanations as to why my technical
explanation may not be true,

No, ARE not true.

but there has been nothing to explain why I
observed the change.

Because that's not up to us. You have the wrong
question.

It is up to YOU NOT to explain WHY you heard what
you claimed, It's NOT up to US to explain why you heard
what you claimed, it's up to YOU to prove you heard
what you claimed, if you want to go anywhere with the
claim.

Yes, it is up to me to explain it.

No, it is up to you to merely demonstrate that you
heard what you claimed. NO one is asking you to
explain it. In fact, people are continually asking you
NOT to explain it.

I can not.

Yes, we've seen that.

And because I can not, therefore it did not happen?
That kind of logic fails me.

It does, so stop using it: it's YOUR logic, not mine.

You have continually either failed or refused
to divorce the observation from the explanation.
IN doing so, you have essentially squandered
any and all credibility that your observation is
real., in my estimation. That's a job YOU did
ENTIRELY on your own: it's YOU logic that failed
you.

So, don't use that logic any more.