Interview Mark Levinson - About the new C Wave Technology
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 окт 2024
- We have an interesting talk with Mark Levinson. A man that doesn't really need an introduction. We talk about Daniel Hertz and the new C Wave Technology. A very interesting technology that should 'fix' digital, PCM audio! That's a very bold statement, isn't it? Well: it is... but Mark Levinson is not a man that speaks empty words... Check out the interview to lean more.
I am curious to find out how they managed to test liver function quickly enough to rule out other factors/influences. He said a doctor tested 50 people „informally“. I assume informally means that this wasn‘t a real study. If it were, why not sell it to the medical industry. I find his whole „spiel“ more than questionable.
As a side note: he talks about audio companies wanting/needing to make money as if that were a bad thing. Without making money there would be no audio industry and hence no audio gear for us to enjoy. This is coming from the man that I assume profited quite handsomely from having gear made in China sold under the „Red Rose“ name. Nothing wrong with made in China, but I call foul on his „we are in it for the embetterment of man kind“ stick.
Observational study, probably. But yeah, this is just more mumbo-jumbo. If you follow his logic, prolonged exposure to PCM causes cancer; hours upon hours of immunosuppressive load? Levinson is a medical genius 😄
Could you find a product(s) made in China that we have never heard of before, and rebranded to your brand and market it world wide and successful? Why does the original brand not sell as well as under the Red Rose name ? Did you think the buyers were stupid or being fooled when they listened to the sound ???
I get what he is saying in a sense. If i sit down to relax and listen to my system, if the music is on the bright side i do feel slightly tense. When the music stops i feel slightly more at ease and relaxed. if i listen to a warm recording i feel even more relaxed. So a good DAC among everything else does make a difference of we know. In regard to reverb, who doesn't like a little reverb? It makes the music sound more real to me.. How I achieve it is by speaker placement, move my speakers around until i get that small amount of reverb, too much is annoying , too little sounds dead. I use B Technology, get my butt up and move my speakers around technology.
Hmm - this is like listening to Bob Carver describe the benefits of his "Magnetic field coil power amplifier" or "Sonic holography" - although I will add that Mr. Carver was a physicist and engineer. Here it sounds like Mark is producing a proprietary Class D amplifiers and is using computer-controlled reverb to 'fill in the gaps' of PCM/digital source material and its related amplification. In looking at his website, he describes a proprietary Class D amplifier chip that is programmable using a "Windows 11 PC running the Canvas III master control software program" to alter the sonic profileof the amplifier chip via its embedded software. I guess time will tell if people feel that deliberately distorting a signal to compensate/counteract other distortion is a viable solution.
I will say that Mark has stubled on an interesting concept: the audio world, from recording, mastering, amplification, etc. is becoming a predominantly digital world vs. the old analog world and that yeilds the question of if we need different components better-suited to handle this source material for audiophiles. Do we need Class D amps? And, if so, do we need software-controlled amplifiers to produce the best sound? Or can we take a digital source, convert it to analog and run it through existing great analog components and achieve equal, if not better, sound?
I’d never looked into that idea! A brilliant thought!
Thank you for posting.
Not the stepped sampling urban legend wave result again, no more please.
Thanks for the Interview!! 😊 i'm a bit sceptical about his approach. Also telling everyone how the Industrie is failling. Ehhhhh, excuse me sir, but d.hertz System and speaker are highly overpriced else every higher ending vendor! Also saying PCM is wrong and his new patent is the wholy grail.....sounds for me like the MQA Story some years ago 😮😊 DAC chips are so sophisticated these days, not sure what he is referring, also the mentioned study....
Yep as soon as he started going on about liver function listening to music 🙄 another MQA moment I fell for that not falling for this bull.The valves sound lovely to me in my system & give me that extra detail missing.
If you think about what he’s saying PCM makes you ill then there’s going to be massive lawsuit from everyone.
It’s ok to argue about subjective opinions, but how can you argue about objective scientific measurements? Please explain.
I never said pcm is wrong. I only showed objective measurements of how pcm digital audio affects human physiology, and how C Wave changes the response. Don’t shoot the messenger.
@@marklevinson-yg8zh feel free to share those *studies* to the public and everyone can validate your statements. Still you made quite strong statements that besides your Invention, no one else is *solving the PCM dilemma*, whatever that means in technical terms. I just wanna understand the facts behind .. thanks for your time!
@@marklevinson-yg8zh
You stated that PCM is inherently flawed due to "missing information" between each sample, which you have miraculously "solved" by "injecting" REVERB of all things into the digital data stream?!?!
Nyquist & Shannon are rolling in their graves, man!
Who else do we shoot??? You didn't name or specific the Doctors, Researchers, or Lab/Medical Facilities that were responsible for the testing!
And your parroted use of the fallacious "stair-stepped" digital "waveform" example vs a smooth & continuous analog waveform reveals your complete fundamental misunderstanding of the Nyquist-Shannon theorem and how A/D & D/A conversion actually function.
If you don't do anything else, please just promise me that you will go and watch the following video by an actual audio and electrical engineer who demonstrates in real-time with visual & operational examples in layman's terms how A/D & D/A conversion is accomplished. Search for:
"FL Studio, D/A and A/D | Digital Show and Tell (Monty Montgomery @ xiph org)"
You also showed no such "objective measurements", just some pretty "bar charts" and on just ONE sheet of paper to show for such an extensive and complicated research project!?!?
No information regarding the actual "doctors" or researchers that were involved was given. What are their credentials and where is this research documented and published for peer review?
IF this is really such groundbreaking research, it would be going viral across all social and MSM as well as in every accredited medical/mental health/and scientific journal, and the doctors/researchers would definitely claim and demand full credit and the accolades for their findings which have FINALLY "FIXED" the supposed "ISSUES" with PCM that Nyquist & Shannon were somehow completely oblivious to. ROTFLMAO!
Again, where are these researcher's names and where is this groundbreaking research documented?
Why do you show up with just one piece of paper with some meaningless bar graphs on it displaying the results from just FOUR test subjects?
What was the full process and the exact test conditions, methodologies, and scope of the research? Where is this published with the full results and bloodwork?
IMPO, your "doctors" would have been much better off testing and measuring real-time brain activity with correlation to emotional response.
Liver and kidney function will vary with simple ingestion of food and drink such as fruit or fruit juices or water which will alter blood sugar/insulin levels and which may have been offered to the test subjects within a certain "convenient" timeframe during the tests, LOL.
Can you cite any other research with definitive findings in regard to proper kidney and liver function being directly related to our emotional response and wellbeing???
The reality of the matter at this point in time is that your claims are simply a "He Said/She Said" conundrum with no validated information presented to the public.
If he is so sure a controlled test would give the same result then do it - a double blinded, placebo controlled test with a minimum of 100 participants. Tests without any of these controls are subjective tests as they are open to tester bias. What he is currently presenting is little more than anecdote.
"a double blinded, placebo controlled test with a minimum of 100 participants" sounds rather (!) complex and purely academical. I would suggest to listen for yourself and make your head and heart decide if the illusion is strong enough to make you feel like you're listening to live music. To me, this is what this hobby is all about.
@@marcusfordal4973 bruh, this is not that academic..this is what consultants and companies do all the time to prove themselves and others that their technology or product does what it says it does. I been in business for years and we have done this...its not that hard to conduct
@@marcusfordal4973 I have no issue with his sound quality claims, but he is making health claims that this device improves human health. That is what his "study" was all about. I am a member of the Australian Skeptics and what he presents here ticks all the boxes for a pseudoscience claim: (1) Uncontrolled "study" on a small sample size. (2) Refers to a "Doctor" without mentioning a name or even if their doctorate is in a relevant field (are they a medical doctor or a PhD?). (3) Reveals theirs findings to the media rather than publish in a peer reviewed publication. Mark Levinson could seriously damage his professional reputation with this nonsense (Google 'brock polariser' to see a real world example of this).
What have you ever contributed to anyone in life? Why don't you and that stupid sob at ASR, Amir empty your wallets and do the 100 participant test yourselves?
Hahaha, Im sure he would rather stick needles in his eyes.
I have been into audio for 35+ years and i am confused with these statements etc. Mork from Ork
…and as it was revealed, ML’s business, financial, and marketing acumen successfully cleared a path for the company’s ascent. The collective engineering genius of Tom Colangelo, and John Curl mark the pediment of brilliant products that produced fabulous performances establishing a high-end echelon that aspiring devotees like myself, long to reach, away from high-volume mass production mid-fi sound.
It definitely seems as though a tragic malady is on a horizon for ML, and I love, and wish him well.
"Music is not about profit".. then goes on to want to sell a 30K usd amp. WTF
yea the unit I looked up of his with C-wave tech started at 18,000 , lol
This guy is off his rocker. Try and watch his interviews with OCD HiFI guy, they are so hard to watch.
the color of genius
Mark is a salesman. A very successful one.
@@Cakebattered It's called Mark Levinson or Daniel Hertz for a reason. You can be an extremely gifted designer and have no ability to self-promote, and for that reason the world may never know your name. But when you can talk about what you want to achieve, bring together a team to create that product, and make a connection with a person that convinces them to buy, that has genuine value that ensures a place in the world for the gifted designers to draw profit and some fame as well.
*Thanks for this great video. Excellent* ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Its refreshing to hear this man speak about honesty.
The majority of brands are pumping out amps/integrated amp's that are always built cheap in some way or another.
Thank-you Alpha Audio and Mark Levinson.
LOL, ML is about as "honest" as my distant relative, P.T. Barnum. 😛
I would love to have one of your c wave products but I am afraid I could never afford $20K+ for an amplifier. It’s funny. Digital audio has been around for 60 years (or more). Now I need a 20k amp to “fix” the pcm? So, If we take pcm and convert it to analog using D to A is it not continuous? The quantization is an approximation (discontinuous)but isn’t the D to A creating a continuous waveform? I am a bit confused. We don’t hear digital. So you are saying the digital converted to analog is not continuous? Would like to understand more how exactly this tech works. What is suspect is that there is something added to the digital before analog conversion that “smears” the digital to make it sound more analog. Adding reverb? To fill in the missing? What I have found is that chip based ADC and DACs do not sound as good as early digital. Those Telarc disks from 80s sound phenomenal.
Dr. Hirata already did tests over 40 years ago (May 1980) on individuals' physical reactions to hi-fi. The Hirata method is based upon noting that musical waveforms often contain transient events which are brief, and asymmetric in shape. Recognizing this, Hirata devised test waveforms which are asymmetric and quasi-transient, but which have a mean (average level) of zero - i.e. no d.c. component. Waveforms of this general type are very interesting since they can probe effects whereby the linearity of an amplifier (or other audio component) is sensitive to medium-term statistical or short-term asymmetries in the waveforms. Unfortunately, as with the Belcher method, Hirata’s proposal in the above article is based upon waveforms that have some related drawbacks. For example, the Hirata waveforms were essentially a group of rectangular pulses. The resulting spectra then depend upon the sharpness of the pulse edges, etc.
The purpose of what follows is to outline some of the amplifier effects which might need to be probed to identify non-linearities which affect musical reproduction. Then go on to consider an alternative method that might provide measured results more relevant to musical performance.
Measuring well and sound well are different things. Hirata tested many amps; some tested measured poorly like the Marantz 8B but sound fantastic while some amps that measured very well sounded bad on his testing method. There are many products that measure well and sound awful.
I won't get into the end user restrictions i.e. rooms etc. Nobody lives and listens in an anechoic chamber.
So what?
Great interview Jaap. I was immediately thinking about Axign in NL. They can design and develop these C Wave technology using feedback-controlled D class amplifiers.
Interesting. I don't know them. Will look it up.
NB: just looked them up. I know their story. It's a different tech though.
As an ex-mastering engineer, can confirm that the effect of adding a tiny bit of reverb to an existing recording at the end of the audio chain can smooth out the audio in a pleasing way that no equalizer or compressor or saturator or limiter (the most common examples of audio processing tools) can do. Therefore, it makes much sense that a clever way of applying a tiny bit of reverb in the digital domain (which was implied in this interview) will similarly create a pleasing smoothness to audio output. The Daniel Hertz amp sounds unbelievably smooth versus other amps, which now makes sense when considering what we learned here. I assume that such a technique / technology will be copied by one or more manufacturers at some point, bringing the consumer cost to enjoy such an option in audio equipment down.
@DynissRainer
I would much rather want to be able to add reverb only WHEN I want to, for instance via my Bricasti M7 or other high-end studio reverb, rather than this "always on" approach to the entire signal in the D/A conversion.
Anyone could add a Bricasti M7 to ANY amplifier or preamplifier for less than the cost of the Daniel Hertz units and it would also allow for a quick A/B as well as a plethora of different types and levels of reverb that might be much more appropriate for a specific style or genre of music.
It's common when tracking any vocalist that they nearly always want a decent amount of reverb applied to their hear-back monitoring via their over-ear headphones or IEMs. Most vocalists don't like the sound of their own voice "dry" without any reverb. But applying appropriate and pleasing reverb is Extremely Tempo- and Timing-Dependent.
The mixing engineer will already apply the artists' and their own type and amount of reverb to each instrument and vocal in the mix as desired. As a drummer/percussionist and sax player, I will almost always apply some reverb (for drums it is usually just on my overheads), but I DO NOT want someone adding a constant reverb or any other EFX on top of what I've already applied to the mix!
You’re either gullible, a shill, or both.
The old tech has served us well (John Curl for myself) but Mark's product is trying to tackle real world issues? (my words) like digital sources, digitally created music. Almost like an amplification simulator? hat's off to Mark for being a pioneer!
Pioneer lol
Does anyone talking in the video know what a reconstruction filter is? Saying digital audio has these steps that need to be filled in is just foolish.
I have to agree I have a lot of questions about how this works. There wasn't enough time to ask about the deeper workings.
@@TheAlphaAudio
Jaap, look up Patent Number US11925433B2 for yourself and read it carefully. Here are just a few RED FLAG excerpts:
"...it [C-wave] relates to PCM digital audio improvements and using specific Reverberation and Equalization settings that have been determined to POTENTIALLY improve certain physical health parameters, measurements, and the listening experience of anyone who listen to the sound..."
"...as measured by at least ONE bio-sensor attached to at least ONE listener."
Who is willing to bet that this ONE listener is Mark Levinson himself, with the tests being performed before and after taking his "I'm Just Happy" pill? LOL
FYI, ANYONE can file a Patent for a "TECHNOLOGY". This does not automagically mean that the said "Technology" actually works as claimed...especially when the caveat of "Potentially" is used as a prediscriptor to all of the verbiage and claims that follow within the patent.
In the video, Mark's description and example of a "Stair-Stepped" digital waveform with "missing information" between each of the samples clearly expose his fundamental misunderstanding of the Shannon-Nyquist theorem and how A/D & D/A conversion actually function. Please search for and watch:
"FL Studio, D/A and A/D | Digital Show and Tell (Monty Montgomery @ xiph org)"
TL;DW ?
The claimed "Stair-Stepped digital waveform" does not exist in reality, and there are no "gaps" or "missing information between the digital samples" that can, or need to be, "filled in" with REVERB, EQ, or otherwise!
This is just another "solution" to a "problem" that doesn't exist.
There have been many very influential and "legendary figures" throughout history with seemingly "good souls" and "honest & pure intentions" who have smooth-talked the public and have used the promises of medical cures, and better health, happiness, & well-being to convince the uninformed masses to part with their hard-earned money.
ML is simply the modern day equivalent of P.T. Barnum for the high-end HiFi world.
Mark is not an audio or electrical engineer, and any of the "legendary" electronic circuitry in the products bearing his name have all been designed by other true professionals in the industry that he or the company has hired.
Caveat Emptor
This C wave tech sounds similar to what Chord do with their Hugo M scaler (filter and upscaler). Anyone know if this is the case?
@@ryanclements6031Actually, no. With Chord, the goal appears to have an FIR filter with >1 million taps. You need massive computing horsepower that DACs tend not to have. Hence, the scaler product. What C Wave is purported to do is not at all like that.
@@ryanclements6031
Via the US Patent, C-wave "Technology" adds a specific mix or unique ratio of both particular EQ adjustments as well as Reverb to the signal.
From my longer comment above, the Technology Overview & Outline in the Patent (# US11925433B2) presents some notable RED FLAGS (noted again below).
In this video, as well as other comments here, ML states that he has presented Objective Data which substantiate his claims. However, the verbiage in the patent filing is very carefully chosen, and should be examined with scrutiny.
The following are short, but notable excerpts directly from the patent filing that I have directly quoted below. I have highlighted particular words in CAPS and *BOLD* text that IMO are important and relevant:
"...it [C-wave] relates to PCM digital audio improvements and using *specific Reverberation and Equalization SETTINGS* that have been determined to *POTENTIALLY* improve certain physical health parameters, measurements, and the listening experience of anyone who listen to the sound..."
"...as measured by at least *ONE* bio-sensor attached to at least *ONE* listener." /END PATENT TEXT
So, the opening Technology Overview states that the improvements and benefits of "C-wave" are based one the measured results of just ONE LISTENER. Would that be ML himself? The patent does not identify this single listener.
We've all been (happily) listening to and enjoying our music via digital formats for decades now, and that is because D/A & A/D conversion has been well sorted for those many decades thanks to Shannon & Nyquist.
From my perspective, claiming actual benefits to our physiological health and well-being through the use of this C-wave "technology", which should be noted is exclusive or proprietary, while essentially deeming all other standard PCM as comparatively "unhealthy" for our liver or kidney function or "well-being", is a serious matter.
Whatever research may or may not have been performed here needs to be clearly presented and made publicly available for peer review.
For all of this supposed research, ML "showed up to the fight" (errr, video) with just a Single Sheet of Paper as an example of his definitive Objective Data which shows some simple and pretty bar graphs on it with some relative/corresponding numbers applied to them, such as "50".
"50" WHAT? No identification or parameter were defined or given for exactly what these numbers represent. If and when we're talking about our health and well-being, I demand to know every detail of the research, not just some hand-waving with a single sheet of paper presented with some vague commentary.
Digital music certainly can be improved and I hope PCM is not the end of the line because it is still far from sounding natural. Is C-wave the answer? Won’t know until I hear it but anything that helps make digital music sound more natural is a step in the right direction.
12:46 his test and digital (re)encoding is similar to what sony did on creating atrac3 compression/decompression alog and JVC k2 24bit decoding.
Both tech did not last long in the market.
Only Genelec dsp sam smart studio speakers allow the doors of paradise open. And when connected digitally with specific aes/ebu 110 ohm cables directly to your bluray/uhd bluray player (impedance converter included 75/110 ohm) with your coax/aes ebu connectors you will hear everything accurately and deeply. And you can only do this in your living room or bedroom. Smart active monitor. 8331/8341/8351/8361a
I know because I only enjoy listening to music with genelecs in my living room digitally.
@@TheSagitis And why?
I wonder if feeding it with a PCM signal that's clocked by a topnotch clock would make it even better
Probably. C Wave is not for fixing jitter.
@@TheAlphaAudio I think Chord's multi-tap and upscaling tech are essentially aiming at the same thing, to smooth out the sample form, would love to know how they compare with C Wave. Because Dave and Scalar has been my dream DAC for a while :P
'I love minimalism'. Hence the inscrutable presentation. Digital audio and liver function? Hmmm, why not body mass index, circulating triglyceride levels, or left ventricular ejection fraction?
minimalism is a synthesis, not an accumulation.
Mark never paid my friend John Curl for his fantastic audio construction ideas! Dr Solheim Norway /Marbella
@@bolsesolheim7469 hello from Marbella!
Have there been any papers published in respected journals [IEEE, AES, etc.], that substantiates and support these claims?
samb3706
Good luck with that. 😛 ML is the P.T. Barnum of HiFi.
@bbfoto7248 haha, yep
Good luck with that one!
0:52 Salvatore Tessio of "The Godfather." "Tell Mike it was only business......can you get me off the hook, for ole time sake?"
It sounds like what they are attempting to do is cover up filter artifacts with a sort of time domain dither, using reverberance of transients as the noise generator to settle or hide impulse elongation/ringing so the transient energy remains in the original signal and not bouncing around just above the filter cutoff. I've worked with reverb a lot, and this is not something I ever experienced or considered possible. But whatever his DSP is doing, if people like the way it sounds I guess it should sell well. Otherwise it's another thing like adaptive filters, apodizing filters, MQA processing, that might produce a particular nice sound, but isn't the end all of digital audio.
Now, this is what I've been waiting for. Music with a demonstrable impact on better health. Mark's waiting list on Daniel Hertz is one integrated and speakers longer.
That's funny, I never experienced any problems listening to pcm digital sources unless it was music I was not in the mood to listen too ;)
From the explanation given, it seems what is missing in digital are the harmonics and their richness. C wave tech would then add some kind of reverb pointwise to the wave signal, before having it go through DAC conversion. It may as well work, bur keeping in mind that extraneous information is being added to the original signal, though such reverb somehow keeps a correlation to the signal being "corrected".
Mark mentions that good audio gear need not be costly. However, his earlier and famous audio brands like Cello, Red Rose and ML have always been quite expensive and short-lived, having been advertised from the same assumption, namely, these have always been quoted by Mark as "revolutionary", and yet none of them stood the test of time. So, we've all seen Mark make claims like this before, we've seen it already, and here he is with the same talk which to me sounds a little like an adman's talk. He may as well be right, but I'd rather listen to all this with a grain of salt.
As a duplicitous northern italian with a sales background and a penchant for BS I can only ask “Father? Is it really you 😝? The Darkened One returns, rejoice! 🎉
Mark Levinson is a business man first and then everything else follows in the order that Mark has in his head. Follow the money....
You can do it by upsample your PCM to as high as possible.
Does anyone understand what this man is talking about?
I ain't sure even he does..
@@ashneellol
great marketing, put yourself above everything else by choosing your own different criteria
I’m not sure. Maybe the interviewer could have asked better questions
"but Mark Levinson is not a man that speaks empty words..." --> That's exactly what he does. His claims, statements and misunderstanding are painful to see/hear. By the way: I've seen the insides of the Hertz Maria amplifier and it's just a bunch of standard off the shelf reference design circuits and semi-finished products made by others and they claim it their own and on top of that put a ridiculous price-tag on it.
When I listen to rock of 70-s, no matter a source (PCM or vinyl) - I'm happy. If you force yourself to listen to something, C Wave may be a solution. Again, a loudspeaker is 90% of a success IMHO. Thake a .. for instance .. JBL Paragon, and everything else won't matter.
very inspiring man. very exciting direction in gear
Универсальной аппаратурой является бумбокс с минимальным разрешением, массовая музыка для него и записана и ничего не поделаешь с этим
It definitely makes sense, I want to know more and hear and feel it, the trouble its priced for the super rich, not sure many can and want to bend 50-200k for a system, very unfortunate. The patent is also likely to be super high priced to keep it exclusive. trouble 2: it sounds like no more than an exclusively packed digital reverberance filter.
The "Steve Jobs" of Hi-Fi lol
Ken Kessler described Steve Jobs as "the best salesman since Harold Hill (The Music Man)."
Was pcm at 768 was any dsd compared ! Or just adding lil reverb on ur blooth pa s and all .. Alot left out its most likey another hdcd mqa scam .. did you also try pcm at 432 hertz ? TRUST THIS IS GIMMICK !😮😮😅😊
Isnt this exactly the same thing as upsampling? Youre just getting rid of the jaggies of the waveform. He talks about it like he just discovered sex for the first time.
The assumption that 40 kHz or greater sampling rate can't produce a waveform up to 20 kHz precisely violates Shannon Nyquist. The lollipop theory of discontinuity of digital sampling violates the principle that voltage across a capacitor cannot change instantaneously. This is the principle on which an AM radio detector works. All stations are downconverted to 455 kHz in a suoerheterodyne receiver and an RC network connects the dots at the peak of each positive going wave in single sideband. Whatever the C wave does that's beneficial assuming it is, the explanation given here is not correct.
Is he going to come out with a DAC & Streamer???
I'm curious if new vehicles with Mark Levinson systems incorporate the c-wave technology. I just happen to be looking at a new to the market SUV that's available with an ML sound system.
"Mark Levinson" the brand has nothing to do with Mark Levinson the person. The ML brand is part of the Harman Group (Samsung) and a completely separate entity for over 35 years.
@@g.d.1722 Oh, that settles that, then. Thanks.
Sounds like DSD made from analogue tapes should be a step in the direction Mark aims for. A Kong the very high end brands dacs, PCM is upsampled to 16x or 20x DSD and then the analogue output stage becomes much better and easier to get really good, compared to a pcm based dac. Study PS Audio DirectStream dac, Meitner MA3 and others… SACD (DSD 64) sounds like part of Marks solution
I was thinking about dsd as well. But it is different. Still curious about how it works deep down. We didn't have the time to explore that in this interview.
@@TheAlphaAudio The patent for the technology should be publicly available.
@@TheAlphaAudiohow much improvement is C wave over high sample rate dsd?
@@bbfoto7248 yes. Indeed.
Really great discussion with a true icon of the industry. However, I have some concerns over his claims about the research they did. I love the fact that he considers the human aspect of our hobby. But as a physician and scientist I think his explanation of the research results leaves a lot to be desired. He never really explained what they are measuring. What are the units? 50 what?? A lot of correlation not equaling causation in his explanation. I have no idea how they would measure liver function and renal function in real time and what that would have to do with listening to PCM vs C-wave. A lot of hand waving going on here.
It's pure BS. ML and his "doctors" would have done better to analyze brain activity in real time to see our emotional response.
Happy to have a call with you to go over the testing and methodology. I’m in Venice, italy. Let me know a good time and number for a call.
@@bbfoto7248actually, the tests are real time physiological responses measured with computer based diagnostic software.
@@marklevinson-yg8zh Would rather see actual documentation from these tests, otherwise it didn't happen as it needs to be peer-reviewed for validity and credibility.
At least provide the names of the "Doctor(s)" who performed the testing, along with their credentials. If the supposed doctors themselves are not willing to "put their name on the research", or you will not reveal them, that is indeed more telling than any other "endorsement".
Without knowing the doctors or researchers that were involved, along with complete documentation of the process, methodology, and full scope and results of the tests that are publicly available for peer review, it's just your or your supposed doctors' "word" against ours, and that's just not gonna fly or pass the litmus test, especially when claims of our health and wellbeing are being discussed.
@@marklevinson-yg8zh Very kind of you but that won’t be necessary. I’m sure you’re not misrepresenting the data. Might be nice though to point those of use who are interested to where we could review the data and review the methods.
He talks about audio companies wanting to make more and more money, when equipment bearing his name costs what only those with huge amounts of discretionary income can afford. After a certain price point, it's not just about the love of music anymore but ego, bragging rights and obsession (if not a fetish) with audio gear.
I think this guy is doing exactly what he accuses of others. I think his interests are his wallet and not music lovers. I doubt you will find any independent audio engineers who will agree with his vague explanation of how pcm and sampling work.
@@dwaynepiper3261 I agree. The late Marvin Hamlisch was featured in a 1980 Playboy special electronics issue (I still have the magazine) posing in front of his Mark Levinson audio gear. It was him and people like him, the financially well-endowed, that can afford such mega-buck audio gear.
Watch out for your money - Mark is coming for it!!
His role is always the same.marketing and money. People get continually sucked in by these audio gurus.😮
So it is unhealthy to listen to digital music? What kind of nonsense is that?
Some say the same about vinyl
Digital done right is fine.
Hell, Fagan superbly captured and released first gen digital ~'81/'82, ... forty plus yrs ago.
Today, high res capture and release material, is stellar.
It's all good, the pro side and consumer side.
That said, signal manipulation via a feel good vector, is worth exploring.
As long as it's both enhancing and transparent.
@FOH3663
I agree for the most part, especially in regards to D/A & A/D conversion being well sorted for decades.
HOWEVER, claiming actual benefits to our physiological health and well-being through the use of this "technology" exclusively, while essentially deeming all other standard PCM as comparatively "unhealthy" is a serious matter.
Whatever research may or may not have been performed here needs to at least be publicly available for peer review.
@@bbfoto7248
You're right.
I don't see stringent peer review ... only anecdotal subjective takes, which could be compelling if well detailed from mastering engineers, etc., ie., those individuals hanging their hat on this.
Interestingly, if such an approach is effective, then is it appropriate to suggest it likely only represents an immature, early version ... with ample potential for more optimization?
@@FOH3663
What I think would be interesting to do now is a study to determine if tracking, mixing, and mastering engineers as well as avid HiFi/music enthusiasts all have poorer liver and kidney function or more health issues in that regard compared to the national average?
And we might want to include a subset of "analog-only" HiFi enthusiasts who only listen to vinyl and analog tape, no CDs, no Streaming services, or no digital of any kind.
But I bet their numbers are very few, and would also fall into a group of individuals that are more advanced in age and therefore are most likely to have comparatively poorer average kidney and liver function overall to start.
At this point in time, I would estimate that at least 80%-90% of all music is produced and listened to in digital PCM format. Even the lacquers for most vinyl LP records are now cut on the lathe using a digital PCM source file.
Ultimately, I would urge you and all others to carefully read and scrutinize the actual Patent for this C-wave technology for yourself and come to your own determination.
Reading the Patent filing, you will note that there are very specific and minute levels of both EQ and Reverb that are applied or injected into the signal...IMO, they are so infinitesimal that any of their potential effects would simply be overwhelmed by the unique acoustic environment of any listening space so as to be irrelevant.
In my quick perusal, a few key words and phrases I found in the specific wording of the Patent were, "Potential" benefits, and that the results of the "Potential" benefits were determined "as measured with at least ONE bio-sensor, on at least ONE person."
Even if it were 4 individuals, that is far from being a large enough group to allow for a DEFINITIVE determination. I'm also looking into the specific "Avatar" equipment/device that was used to analyze the bio-functions of the test subject(s).
For all of this research, we only saw ML present a single sheet of paper with some basic bar graphs on it but with no specific details or parameters as to what the corresponding numbers of those bar graphs actually represent. WHAT did they measure? "50" what?
Healing sound system! Is it FDA aproved?
My first degree is in Applied Physics/Electronics, a musician (by hobby) and been a SERIOUS audiophile for over 30+ years. My present digital front end is frankly SOTA in its execution, including a LPSU modified MUTEC reclocker whose jitter output spec is lower than can presently be measured. It drives a Lyngdorf PowerDAC in which volume is controlled by adjusting the voltage rail. Sorry to burst any bubbles here, but PCM on my system is simply magical - and to even suggest it is not good for (anybody's) health, borders IMHO on simply silly. I wish you all the best, but (again IMHO) to suggest that your opinions expressed are objective, suggests to me that you need help.
Mark is a great money destroy machine☝️
The Red Rose Music story killed his "Aura"
Study sounds like BS. 4 people studied by Mark then 50 people “informally” studied by a doctor? Cmon.
Why not have an all-analogue system?
That would limit your choices as well.
The devil is in the details. It would be nice to see the experimental design, the measures used, and how they were used. Why would he have hypothesized a priori that the technology would improve outcome on those measures? What is the physiological mechanism by which the technology would produce these effects? Can the effect replicated in other labs?
I also want to go more in depth. But know this research has taken years. We didn't have the time to talk about all of it.
"50 is where you wanna be" Fifty of what exactly? This one goes to 11 so it's one louder!
There were two other Daniels with hearts: Daniel Herz (* 4 June 1618 in Munich; † 28 May 1678 in Wilten near Innsbruck) was a German-Austrian organ builder. So is the brand name Daniel Herz an allusion to these two personalities?
How is it different from using a tube stage for smoothing out the sound? Also how does it compare to DSD?. Which also give a more natural presentation. It is not like Music has been depressing me since the eighties.
A Tube doesn't fix the discontinuity.
@@TheAlphaAudio true
@@TheAlphaAudio How is there a discontinuity in the analog waveform output from the conversion? If there is any legitimacy to the discontinuity argument then you would be arguing for missing data points and an incorrectly shaped waveform. High rate sampling would help the issue, which it seems to, but seemingly by fixing conversion artifacts, not adding missing data.
@@TheAlphaAudio Explain (technically) what this "discontinuity" is?
@@TheAlphaAudio is C wave a way of more accurately reproducing the analogue waveform from discrete digital samples? Does it work better with high definition audio?
Is he family to Bob Stuart!
The huge difference is that you don't need mqa files that have been processed in a certain way.
You obviously missed my sarcasm.
Bob, at least, is genuinely brilliant, in all aspects of the HiFi audio consumption chain. MQA is probably still up for debate in its efficacy.
Next now we will find pink rocks in amps again, f-ing hippies😂
Maybe before fixing it he should try to understand how it works!
I just wish the amp in my ls430 was higher quality
I call bullshit on that one
Any MD's here to answer this: how does one measure the "health" of the liver and kidneys without blood tests? This thing just sounds like a bit.
Is the study published anywhere? I mean if you have such break through make it public and collect royalties instead of an out of reach amplifier.
Why is the interviewer saying "i se" like he knows what he is on about?
7 minutes into this and dude hasn't actually said anything.
...And that's Mark Levinson.
Huge man , LOVE is work !
This guy was married to Kim Cattrall.
How relevant 😂
@@OssidianOssidianSo, Steve Jobs was the man who never built or designed the pushbutton-less mobile phone, correct ?? They had the visionary guys !!!
Hi Jaap, are you going to review Daniel Hertz products?
Dont know yet. It depends on two things: i want another interview with more in depth info. And it depends on the Dutch importer.
@@TheAlphaAudioThanks for your feedback Jaap. Who is the Dutch importer? Or do you know where in the Netherlands I can listen to Daniel Hertz?
@@erichuisman1119 ECRT is the Dutch importer.
@@TheAlphaAudio I couldn’t find this importer with Google, but now I found it (via your website). It is ERCT instead of ECRT. 😉
Man he is just talking about smoke and mirrors, or a flea circus. If you are adding signal to the source, isn't that the very definition of distortion?
ML components are stupid expensive just like a lot of other brands and I've heard stories of people not even being able to have older ML equipment repaired , so talk is cheap.
The reason older MLAS products are hard to service is that Harman - the company that has the schematics, etc. - refuses to service them or provide parts or schematics to anyone.
Re value, add up what a Maria 350 amplifier does - replaces the dac, preamp, power amp, interconnect cables, headphone amplifier, has 3 x 1 megohms analog inputs, usb, coax and WiFi/Bluetooth, 350W @ 8 ohms/ 500W @ 4 ohms, native resolution of 384khz, 124db dynamic range, second to none in sound quality, and much more - for €12k. Do you think that’s too expensive?
5:00 steve jobs: i disagree, please keep buying our ipod no i mean iphone and airpads
I really do not think you have to care. I think you have to know and have to deliver, again and again. There have been a lot of companies that really did care and put out decent to excellent products, but couldnt survive OUR indifference.
Absolutely!
This is some kind of comb filtering: delay, adder, divider. Easy to do on fpga or dsp.
If you don’t agree with the objective tests we made, how do you explain the results they show?
Happy for your reply. Many people know that pure analog and digital audio are different. Many prefer pure analog and wish to be happier with digital. So far, no one has shown any objective, repeatable consistent test that explains the difference. The C Wave patent is based on tests which show it’s not an audio issue - it’s the way the human brain responds to the continuous waveform of pure analog vs the non continuous waveform of pcm digital. C Wave is a finely tuned reverb algorithm that fills in the spaces with a very small amount of signal from original music information. Imagine you want to make a digital copy of an analog tape. Until now, digital copies never sound the same. With C Wave, it’s much closer.
@@marklevinson-yg8zh I still believe the problem is the too low sampling rate.
Forgot this bloke's audio products. I'd be more interested in going halves with him in whatever gear he is on
I see where he's going 3 hours of Yngwie Malsteen makes me feel ill.
Will you lend to ASR for evaluation?
Properly Sounding DACs don't measure well due to variability if the harmonics needed for human centric sound for real ears
😂😂😂 did you seriously just ask if ML will lend to ASR? 😂😂😂 why in the world would ML want to have any association with that clown. He’s known as a bottom feeder. Geniuses like ML and others certainly know better. FYI. You measurment clowns are the worst. Measurements doesn’t always tell you how something will sound.
I’m not keen on the value of Mark’s new patent. All claims require some measure of physiological health as a claim limitation. No competitor of Daniel Hertz is going to sell their own C-wave DAC with physiological health gear or hype the health benefits claimed on CNS, liver or kidney functions. And at least one physician knew that listening to digital audio music correlates with increased negativity and relayed that info to Mark. So Mark’s patent might be missing at least one inventor.
1st I've ever heard of this.
It is brand new.
And for good reason
It is simple and sophisticatedz a screwdriver but an architecture and red and green rectangles and it's super high performance 🤔🧐🙄🙄🙄
'Reverb algoritm'.. Jet another variation of a digital filter? What's new?
Digital comb filter: delay, adder, divider...
Except, he is going to reconvert from analog to digital process and then reconvert it back.
This is probably okay for something like the sugar cube from sweet vinyl. There's no other way to achieve your goal.
Levinson should stick to writing books about orgasm
LMFAO i just learned he has this book
He doesn't understand digital audio. Once the sampling frequency is filtered out beizier curves form between the sample points (not stairsteps) completely recovering the original signal up to Nyquist. Stairsteps don't actually exist in digital audio. This guy is an audio quack.
Does EQ mess up the benefits of C wave processing. Is it better to apply C wave after you're happy with your EQ.
There is an eq build in the C Wave chipset / software.
@@TheAlphaAudio interesting, parametric or graphic?
@@dangerzone007 I don't know. Sorry.
This simply does not add up. I am highly sceptical . Smoke and mirrors on steroids.
Just another marketing ruse, like mqa, dsd etc.
For almost everyone, cd quality is plenty good enough.
Want better sound? Just sort your room out...best money you will ever spend on hifi.
I would encourage Mark and his design team to watch this very accurate technical video and then provide a convincing presentation that debunks reality ruclips.net/video/cD7YFUYLpDc/видео.html. I believe that you are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
This is not real data. It will not be the same thing. Bad sicence.
C Wave sounds like dither to me.
This poor bloke from Alpha Audio looks like Dr. Silverman when Sarah Connor is trying to convince him that Skynet is going to become self aware. This is just the same MQA rubbish all over again under a different name - C Wave
You have a right to be skeptical, but C Wave is based on objective measurements that are just as real as frequency response and THD, except physiological. That’s why it’s accepted and approved by the U.S. patent office.
A patent does not legitimize anything. You just have to present an idea that unique to anything else that has been done before it to enforce copyrights. It does not make a judgement if the idea is something you would want to copy.@@marklevinson-yg8zh
Oil of Snake.
Eliza holes of hi five, going after medical dolllar
Isn’t this a class d amp
Yes, it is.
So much BS in this "hi-fi" world...
Does anyone believe that? It doesn't even take a degree in the field to come to the conclusion that it's an incredibly stupid story.
I’ll learned absolutely nothing! I’m so pissed off that I watch this and wasted 20 minutes of my life. I went to the Daniel Hertz website and it’s a bigger mess than this guy is, there’s no pricing there’s no explanation for most of the stuff it looks like a high school kid made it on on his kitchen table. What an embarrassment this is