Do CD treatments improve rips?


Has anyone done any comparison testing between untreated CDs ripped to hard drive, that are subsequently treated (examples: polishing, demagnetizing, ionizing, Nespa-ing, edge-marking or beveling, copying to CD-R, using disc mats) and then re-ripped (using the same ripping software to the same hard drive)? I'm interested in knowing if the two rips are identical bit-wise (verification software), and also if they sound exactly alike. If you've done this comparison, could you also let us know the hardware and software involved? Thanks!
jharrell

Showing 1 response by mryan

I use dbPoweramp which consults a database containing the CRCs that others have reported for each track. Of 1500 CDs, only a handful weren't in the database.

I found no benefit to cleaning the CD unless it ripped with a CRC different from everyone else's. In those cases, I cleaned the surface of the CD and for the rare, tough caes also used Auric Illuminator.

Although the CD drive may retry before software retries, the read may ultimately fail. In many such cases, after a quick cleaning, CDs then ripped cleanly on a single pass.

My guess is that most of the treatments we used over the years simply cured the kind of read errors I experienced; since the ripping process is not real-time, the errors could be detected and corrected. When a CD is playing in real time and there is a read error, the player either has to go silent or has to fake it.

So, the treatments most likely did improve sound quality on real-time playback (on CDs that had read errors).

Once you rip a track to a bitstring whose CRC matches that of 20 or 30 other rippers (strong evidence that you have read it without error), you cannot rip it any 'better.'

That is, there is one right answer (one correct bitstring and one correct CRC). If you get that answer, then cleaning or treating are pointless.