Tvad, I don't think there would be many, if any, on this thread or others who believe your denial.
One of the benefits of threads on AudioAsylum is that they quickly go to the next page, while those here go on and on. |
Onhwy61, perhaps a little hyperbole in my statement, but yes it elevates redbook to a level where I no longer listen to sacds, because of their lack of drive or pace, and can listen for a long time to digital without missing my vinyl. I do not like the new RealDisc, however, it is easier to use but robs the copies of their lead edge and realism.
Jfz, I will contribute Reality Check copies but obviously am not going to buy another duplicator. |
I don't have time for this palaver. |
After trying the CoolCopy versus the RealityCheck duplicators, I wondered what was going on with some people. The Nespa, however, proved to be the real thing. So at some point I may try the #8500 and even the Jena 3D-X. |
Tvad. don't hold your breath. As you saw in the post I made including quotes from him, he views it as proprietary. And he offers the opportunity to hear for yourself the benefits of his copies versus those you do of your own on the less expensive duplicator.
I doubt seriously if anyone can achieve your goal of due diligence. Lawyers like to talk that way. Yes, doctorate students have to defend their hypotheses and operationalizations of them as well as the quality of their data. But what we are talking about here is a buying decision. Some will buy cheaply and forgo quality but others will go for quality.
Your argument has always hinged on the idea that technology outside audio is cheaper and equal. This is a thesis if I have ever seen one. Defend your position, sir. Were I to find equal for less, of course, I would prefer it.
I take no offense with your posts, as I don't find you as illogical and close-minded as several others here who think an argument consists of belittling. They also do not bother me as I just ignore them. But I do think you are unwarranted in what you expect of people offering products for sale. |
Jfz, you are probably right about breakin. I am just not accustomed to thinking about computer related equipment breaking in. We also need to focus on isolating it. |
Sksos, I for one will be very interested in what you find, but also concerned about your prior notions.
One of his friends and I are in much contact, and he says that George has many, many various hard drives with many mods lying around as well as many cleaning solutions. This might well suggest, as this guy thinks, that George has invested much R&D. |
Steve's posting on AudioAsylum about the competitor duplicator, Cool Copy, was wrongfully removed in my opinion as he does not sell this unit.
In essence he found the Cool Copy superior to the RealityCheck. George Louis does not agree. I have ordered a Cool Copy to try myself.
This all is one of the most muddled and troubling discussions I have ever experienced. All that I know with any certainty is that cleaning and copying cds can greatly improve their sound, and I emphasize "can" as results vary. |
Rhirsch, thanks for the post. Can you say more about the way the Cool Copy may be tweaked? Also, if you will, tell us about how you cleaned both the originals and blanks. |
Rhirsch, I finally got my CoolCopy. My first unit was destroyed by UPS. This one was double boxed.
I do not find the CoolCopy discs that I have done thus far to be the equal of the RealityCheck copies. In both cases I have used RC black cd-rs. I also used the Raw Copy choice on the CoolCopy. I can hear a slight difference with a somewhat smoother sound with the CoolCopy and a somewhat more realistic sound with the RealityCheck unit. From AA, it is apparent that I am not alone in preferring the RealityCheck, but I am not done with my comparisons as yet. Other cleaners, Nespaing the originals, other discs, and better isolating the CoolCopy all need to be checked. I will try Symposium Roller Blocks as you suggest even though my previous experiences with them have not been satisfying. I never do anything without plugging it into my IsoClean ac filtering setup.
I also got my Nespa. As noted above, I need to assess its benefits in all of this. |
Steve, does any computer directly duplicate from the hard drive? I guess I thought everything went in through the RAM and out through the RAM. |
Audioengr, I found your observations interesting but lacking in evidence. Why do the Mitsui's will last a LOT longer? Why is your cleaner superior?
I am sorry that I missed your demonstrations at CES. |
I think the Raw Copy 8x sound better than the 52x Copy Disc. Like you I was surprised that anyone liked the 52x version but it is better than I can get at that speed on my Mac. |
Be166, no the unit you show was supposedly the same as the RealityCheck unit. It looks like the cheaper Cool Copy has forced this company to further reduce the price.
I must say that the unit you show "looks like" the Reality Check, but to my knowledge no one has shown that you get identical results using the cheaper unit rather than the RealityCheck.
My own tests comparing the CoolCopy with the RealityCheck resulted in my selling the Cool Copy as inferior. |
Steve, I suspect that duplication will soon be replaced by hard drives with USB2 connections.
All I know about using computers, two Macs, to make duplicates suggests that the original RealityCheck's copies sound superior, even though I made the computer copies at 4x on to quality cd-rs. |
I don't recall if Quint posts on Audiogon, but I hope he will arrise to the challenge. |
I still say that except for sacds, all of this will be moot as better direct playback from hard drives, such as the VRS system, become available.
Having spent so much time doing tests with the RealityCheck, the Nespa, and the Cool Copy, I do not envy you your quest. |
Dan, I don't agree about digital room correction, but dealing with your listening room and quality power supplies have greater impact on your sound than duplicates as you say. This is not to dismiss the impact of duplicates when using a player.
Interestingly, probably about 5 or 6 years ago some were arguing that cdr copies sounded better than originals. I did many and concluded that this was not the case, although I did copy several scratched cds and continue to use them.
The advent of the RealityCheck, however, followed by the Cool Copy raised the level of duplication substantially. Perhaps as Steve suggests it can be pushed even higher. I assume all of this is attributable to better soft and hard ware including better cd-rs.
As I have posted, Vince at VRS reported to me that although he could hear the benefits of the RealityCheck when using a player, he could not hear any differences when both were ripped to his hard drive.
I have also found that the Nespa has greater impact than duplication using either the RC or the CC. |
I think many buy directly from SOS, but I bought mine from Ambience Audio in Conn.
I bought the first TACT digital amp, but have never had their digital equalizing. I have heard it in others' rooms. Somehow I just don't like what I hear, but I may be lucky to have a good room. |
RealityCheck has a new cd treatment, actually two. UltraBit and UltraBit Gold are a single application treatment for fresh cds and cd-rs. I have tried both on both the originals and on cd-rs that were copied with the RC duplicator. I never liked the RealDisc cleaner, but the UltraBit Gold is both easier and better than the old ClearDisc and ClearBit treatments.
I have found that although UltraBit is also an improvement UltraBit Gold which is somewhat more expensive proves clearly superior. I have also found that cleaning the original is a big improvement especially if followed by using the Nespa, but that duplicating the original after those treatments on to a cd-r that has been treated with UltraBit Gold and then Nespaing the copy, gives a much more precise and realistic soundstage and the best dynamics and drive to the music.
I have thus far redone 12 of the original RC copies that I have with the new procedure and plan to do the remaining 55 as soon as I can. |
Tvad, I know, and I think I am crazy, but the Nespa, the RealityCheck, and now the UltraBit Gold have been substantial improvements. I am afraid, however, that comparing the UltraBit with the Nano 8500 is a bridge too far for me. |
Leec, are you saying that it is superior to UltraBit Gold? My concern is that like the Cool Copy which others touted but I found inferior to the RealityCheck, that I would also not like #8500. I now have piles of digital cleaners and have no idea why some are superior as there is no knowledge as to what chemicals are best. |
Leec, I just read Quint's AudioAsylum post on the Jena Labs' Esoteric 3D-X cd cleaner, which makes my point. He says the #8500 has been bested. |
Leec, thanks for the report.
Ultimately when my UltraBit Gold has run out, I may try both the #8500 and the 3D-X, but for now I am back into vinyl and exhausted with comparing cd-r duplicators, the Nespa, and various cleaners. |
Dazzdax, I certainly got exhausted in doing all the comparisons I did. This is not to say, however, that the duplicators, cleaners, and the Nespa don't work. |
Leec, I mainly Nespa before duplicating cds, but I do sacds. I have not tried redoing them as you suggest. Perhaps I will try this. I must say I hope you are wrong as your being right begs the further questions then about how often to redo and how many times before there is no benefit.
I will also redo some of my cd-rs. |
Leec, I have done none of my cdrs or cds, but each of the sacds I redid on the Nespa for 120 were made more defined and with deeper bass. Heaven knows why. |
I picked sacds that I had done when I originally got the Nespa, aboutt a month ago. I wish I knew why this thing works. It is a lot like the Intelligent Chip in that it works but the explanation is vague at best. I do think it is more effective than the IC, but I still do the IC on the sacds and cd-rs. |
Leec, I suspect we are differing only on the magnitude of improvement from the IC. Last evening as an after thought I treated a sacd with the IC. It was an improvement, but I do frequently forget to use it.
I now have two more sacds where the second round of Nespaing at 120 sec. did greatly improve the sound. They were last treated probably two weeks ago. I still have not tried the cd-r copies which already had a round of Nespaing after being copied. |
Leec, I don't know that anyone else is interested in this, but I have redone three of my cd-rs now. These were Nespaed the first time over one month ago.
First I listened to each and then Nespaed for 60 sec. There was a very great improvement in the bass and soundstaging for each. This causes me concern. Does it mean that the Nespa effect is short term or that I insufficiently Nespaed them originally? |
Leec,
Interesting two hypotheses, namely that our hearing improves versus not lasting Nespa. I guess in another 4 to 5 weeks, were we to again hear an improvement it probably is the latter hypothesis, and we should ask Steve for a refund:<)
You know that I have the Halcyonic isolation base under the Esoteric. It needs to be put to its locked position and then returned to isolation every month or so as the rebalancing yield better sound. I don't understand this either. |
Don_s, as you know Leec and I have found follow-up 120 treatments help a good deal. The one area of disagreement on the use of the Nespa is the cleaners used. I must prefer the RealityCheck UltraBit Gold and burn my copies on the RC burner having found the others fall short.
I will also say that while the Nespa works, the explanation makes no sense, especially on cd-rs which have no pits. |
