In my opinion this one the greatest improvements in audio in 40 years. AA is full of discussions about it, but there has been nothing here. Maybe that a $575 tweak is beyond Audiogoners?
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.
I received my Nespa Pro and Intron Protect 8500 yesterday. I am very pleased with the improvements I am getting. I have never been a CD tweaker since the first bottle of "magic" my dealer sold me 15 years ago. It was such a disappointment I never tried anything else until the Nespa Pro and IP 8500.
I am wondering what others are experiencing related to the number of flashes used. I am only doing 30 flashes at a time. It seems to me the first 30 flashes does the most work. The second 30 flashes makes a larger difference on my "rough" sounding CDs than it does on my clean sounding CDS.
I have never tried more than 60 on any disk so far. Like I said, I just got the Nespa so I am taking it easy--a little at a time.
Any downside from using too many flashes? Has anyone noticed any downside at all?
The instructions that come with the Nespa are quite reminiscent of Japanese car owners manuals from thirty-five years ago. Barely intelligible English.
I know the number of Nespa users is growing quickly. I hope they will share their experiences (positive or negative) here.
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.
Tbg, looks like very few (no one actually) is intersted in this thread but I've been doing more experiements and now have determined that re-Nespaing CD's make little difference after 2 weeks. A small difference after 4 weeks and a bit biger after 5 weeks. Does this mean the Nespa treatments are not lasting? No, I think it means that after a length of time we readjust our hearing and now can hear smaller differences than just after the HUGE improvement 1st heard when one initially Nespa's a disc. I still don't know why everyone doesn't get one of these light boxes, it really is makes such an improvement, with no negative results that I have ever heard. It's a no brainer IMHO. Lee
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, 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.
Tbg, I have tried the IC and it rarely makes a difference. Sometimes I think it does, then I say no it doesn't. The Nespa ALWAYS makes a BIG differnce, nothing you have to even think about, you just know! The wife hears a differnce, even my kids can hear the differnce (though they don't care). No one else has ever heard an improvement from the IC when I have tried it with friends, they think I've gone off the deep end ...... just my experices.
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.
Tbg, after how long a period did you wait between zaps? I just re-did an original Nespa'ed CD that I did just over 3 weeks ago, the improvement was very slight, if any, not worth the effort. Still on a new CD the improvement is so great that it still shocks me. I can see why (per the importer) they have been many, many weeks in backorders and have sold hundreds.
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.
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.
Has anyone tried to re-nespa a CD after a months time and hear any improvements? Sometimes I forget if I've Nespaed a particular CD so I do it again, always hear an improvement, sometimes not huge others HUGE! I was wondering if it might be the case where I had already Nespaed that CD which is why there is not as big a difference. new CD's that are Nespaed , as Tbg says.... are the real deal. This thing is worth twice the price of admission IMO that is. Lee
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.
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.
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.
Tbg, OK, I've now had the opportunity to try the 3D-X. It is very good, maybe equal to the #8500, they both excel in certain areas, but ultimately I like the #8500 but each to their own.
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.
Tbg, I can't believe you don't want to experiment with the #8500 CD fluid treatment. It's only $75 shipped and with all the funds you have tied up in your system this is a no brainer. I've now bought 5 bottles of the #8500 fluid, yes it is that good, nothing has even come close.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"The advantage is that these treatments benefit BOTH the write and the readback with these CD-R copies."
"Of course, if you mod the transport and ALSO rewrite properly treated disks, the results can be amazing"
I can understand the value of treating the source CD when using a copier like the RC, but if you're using EAC to rip the CD to HD, and it reads the source CD until it gets the bits correct, why should treating the source disk make a difference?
Dan
PS- IMO, the difference all this stuff makes, is very small compared to treating the listening room, doing digital room correction, and reducing power supply noise.
Yes, it depends on the software you are using. Most programs utilize a memory buffer that has data streaming in and out to the burner. The idea behind the buffer is to prevent the burner from running out of data.
Steve, Thanks for clarifying my misconception of your project and thanks for sharing your information with us. I look forward to your sharing of the requisite computer specs. My home computer has 512MB of SDRAM (at 400 MHz). I have 3 or 4 unused USB 2.0 connections for external Plextor drives. (For internal drive option, I will need to get some help.) Best, John
I am not selling anything. Just an audiophile having fun with some computer knowledge. I build my own computers. The latest one was optimized for CD-R burning based on my experiences with two other computers. I got into this because I felt and still feel that stand alone duplicators are inferior to what can be made on an excellent computer. The software I am using is Plextools Pro XL. It can verify the data of the copy. I burn at 4X and read at 4X. Before burning, I defragment the memory with anther program.
I think you misunderstood me. I am using a computer for all of this with 2 Plextor Premium and 2 Plextor 716A drives.
As for the specs of the computer, that will all follow soon.
Do you use software that verifies that the content of the CD is transferred accurately, bit for bit, into the RAM? And that the burn from RAM to a CD-R is also accurate, bit for bit? Does the speed of the transfer to RAM and the speed of the burn from RAM matter as they do in the conventional duplication? Will your unit provide the flexibility to burn disk-at-once as well as one-track-at-a-time. The latter is convenient for making compilations. I was just getting ready to buy a CD duplicator, so, your announcement intrigues me. When will your unit be ready for marketing and what will be it's approximate cost?
My technique is a bit different. I am placing the entire contents of the CD into RAM and burning directly from the memory. The RAM is faster than a hard drive and I believe less subject to timing errors.
Splaskin wrote: "Burning on the fly results in better copies than burning from a hard drive."
Not a valid conclusion IMO. You said yourself that it is dependent on the hardware. I have found just the opposite to be true. With an external battery-powered burner, the computer makes superior copies to anything I have heard.
Burning on the fly results in better copies than burning from a hard drive. I have avoided the computer burn issue as it is complicated and results will vary considerably depending on hardware. The success of the computer burn is dependent on many factors. Memory type, amount, and speed of memory, power supply, drives, processor speed, etc. All of this is computer stuff. I will be addressing all of this in the near future.
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.
Look at the duplicator specs. There is no magic in CD duplication. More memory does make an improved copy.
The better duplicators now offer 128MB of memory compared to the Acard's 8MB. Better drives such as the Plextor 716A reduce jitter and make better copies.
George is now selling a Disc Maker duplicator with 128MB of memory and 2 Plextor 716A drives.
Meritline offers a 128MB duplicator for a very reasonable price.
All of this equipement is computer stuff-that means it goes into "old age" very quickly. George's Acard is in this category.
Over the last six months I have spent a great deal of time learning about CD duplication. It also prompted me to build 2 computers-the latest one is making killer CD copies that go far beyond what is possible with a duplicator. More to follow.
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.
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.
BTW - I looked at the Cool Copy. I cannot believe that you will get decent copies at 52X write speed. All of the copiers that sound good IMO use much lower speed, usually 1X.
The cleaner/treatment will be reviewed in the near future when I am ready to start selling it. I will be providing the reviewers multiple CD-R disks rewritten and treated with all products currently available on the market, including Spectra.
MikeLavigne - I was involved in the shootout at CES. The RC provides a real improvement, but so does my rewriting system, which I call the CD Tune-up. I am using a modified Yamaha writer that has low-jitter modified Superclock and battery power. I rip using EAC on the computer to insure a good read.
At least half of the improvement is by using the right treatment before writing the CD-R. I have tried a lot of them, and so has my partner, highdeftapetransfers.com. I have my own magic fluid now, Spectra and we both like it. The advantage is that these treatments benefit BOTH the write and the readback with these CD-R copies. I do not plan to offer modded writers like the RC and I have not added a rewriting service to my website yet, but I'm considering it. The media is extremely important and I have found that the Mitsui Audio Master is every bit as good as the black Melody disks, which vary a lot in quality, and the Mitsui's will last a LOT longer.
Another important feature of the writer is that it "stretch" or otherwise slow the writing speed in order to get well-defined pits. I write a 1X speed and my writer has a special algorithm to get well-formed pits.
As for the difference in the data, I found that the trailing info is different when using different writers and writing software. The beginnings are all the same. I conclude that the difference that you hear is the lower jitter.
I equate the magnitude of improvement to about $1K-1.5K in mods to a typical transport, so it is a really good value IMO. I performed a number of jitter demonstrations at CES that showed that the improvement was about the same magnitude as a typical digital/power/clock mod on a transport. Of course, if you mod the transport and ALSO rewrite properly treated disks, the results can be amazing, albeit not quite as good as a high-end computer-driven audio source. This will always be lowest in jitter.
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.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
