On May 7, 2024, at 1:15 PM, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
my ears would never be good enough to notice any difference....
For what it's worth:
First, in general, there are so many apparent reviews of so many products, it is hard to
believe they are all scams. How can there be enough fools to buy enough of those products
to have that many different ones? I mean, it takes a lot of work to develop a product, if
you only sell 5, it is not worth it. if you take money and don't send anything,t hat
would show up in a google search.
also, what some hinted at is the issue is even a very slight amount of magnitsm, spinning
very fast, could affect the signal in the playback head....
A CD or DVD "demagnetizer" is by definition a scam and an utter fraud. Those
media are non-magnetic and in any case magnetism plays no role whatsoever in reading
them.
Also, keep in mind that something may look like a review but it's actually a press
release, perhaps slightly warmed over.
Do CDs and DVDs have parity and or checksums? If you
grab a CD twice, will both results be identical bit for bit?
They go way beyond checksums, using sophisticated ECC schemes. There's a good reason
why a scratched disk can, in most cases, be read without trouble. I remember reading
years ago that someone showed off the CD ECC scheme by drilling a hole into a CD (2-3 mm
or so) -- it read just fine anyway.
So yes, unless the disk is damaged beyond the power of the ECC, it will read correctly
every time. And even if it does exceed the ECC, it will in most cases read the same,
though some bits of data will be unrecoverable. You'd have to go WAY beyond the ECC
limits to reach the point of undetected data errors, i.e., a misreading of the data that
the ECC doesn't catch (let alone correct).
That property holds for all codes, in fact. Every one of them has a set of error patterns
it will detect, a set it will correct, and a set it will miss. The design challenge for
codes is (a) understand the likely error patterns it will be confronted with in the wild,
(b) understand the required probabilities for (1) uncorrectable and (2) undetected errors,
and (c) to create a good code that delivers on these requirements efficiently.
"Efficiency" is defined by coding overhead as well as implementation cost.
What an amazing pile of bunk.
Some years ago I was joking about the possibility that someone would sell gold plated
fiber optic cables to suckers like that. Imagine my surprise when, somewhat later, I
spotted Monster fiber optic cables with gold-plated connectors.
paul