Shadorne, There is nothing wrong with his transport. From my experience treatment of discs works on ALL cdp's. I have confirmed it on these players:
Ah! Njoe Tjoeb
NAD
Rega
Marantz
Ayon
Cambridge Audio
Parasound
Not one of these players had an issue. It's the MEDIA which improves, making the players more efficient.
You can say, "A Bit is a bit, is a bit...." Until the end of the world, but this is WAY too easily heard an improvement (treatment, not necessarily Rain-X) to experience to be held up by objections. Anyone can do this and find out for themselves. I would suggest that anyone who cannot hear the improvement has either profound hearing issues or really, really crappy equipment (or both). This is NOT a comment directed at you, Shadorne! It's an arugment in general. :)
When a fuel additive is put in the gasoline of a car's tank and the performance improves slightly, one does not say, "There was a problem with the engine". Similarly, treatment of the disc resulting in improvement of sound is NOT a sign of a "problem" with the transport/cdp.
Excellent point, Elizabeth! An already "slippery" disc will seem like a "failure" when treated.
Read my comments on the Jena Labs Disc treatment goop:
http://www.dagogo.com/JenaEsoteric3DX.html
Note that I was treating discs on my own long before reviewing this disc treatment system. |
Shadorne, Consider changing the entire set up because a low budget treatment improves sound? Sheesh. You should be an audio salesman. ;)
It works the same with transports using external DACS. I have tested it as well with Benchmark DAC1 and Monarchy M-24 pre/DAC. You're still looking for a problem where there isn't one. I haven't tried it with PC's transports, but I wouldn't be surprised if it improved them audibly as well.
Enough treatment has been made when the disc is shiny. You know, sort of how you can tell when enough car wax has been applied to get a car shiny.
I tested whether re-treatment after a year or two was effective. It was not. The effect was permanent improvement from one treatment.
Man, just DO the test; just get some goop and use it! Don't tell me you won't spend five bucks to find out for yourself? I think you would be VERY surprised at the result. I, for one, would rather spend five bucks and a few hours of my time rather than sell off and purchase a new source. :) |
Shadorne, Say! You have a DAC1 - try it! :) |
Shadorne, surely you're not going to let a lousy buck or two for some soft car polish or Rain-X, or whatever, stop you from such a discovery?
Take your oldest, worst, disc my friend, and try it. :) |
"My personality will not allow me to try it... "
I don't consider that a valid excuse, but you are being honest. |
I am not only being persistent, but CONsistent. I am not willing to allow unsubstantiatied reports of efficacy of said treatements to be accepted unless I have done the test myself.
The efficacy of the treatment lies in the ability to hear clearly, easily a difference in sound. I found that to be the case with disc treatments such as polishes.
You are acting consistently with your belief that there will be no effect. However your belief is wrong. You could determine through simple testing whether your belief, though you think it well founded, is correct. :)
I think a fear lies behind the unwillingness to test it out. You consistently suggest to others that if there is a change to the sound through said treatments there is a "problem" with their gear. Are you willing to face that possibility with your own gear?
Of course, I insist there is no problem at all with the gear. :) |
Dgarretson, excellent post. What's not often discussed in debates (friendly, as this one is, or not) is negative bias. Often arguments are used in an effort to discount treatments/tweaks without addressing the fact that some approach listening to tests of said treatments with an attitude/mindset which minimizes or marginalizes what they are hearing.
Of course, it's impossible to approach such tests completely unbiased, but the playing field should be level. :)
I always find it rewarding when I can show someone with a negative bias the efficacy of such treatments. It is impressive when someone disposed to discount their worth hears and is convinced of their efficacy.
Sometime I'll have to try the green marker thing. My ego is not such that I fear being made fun of. I just don't care to do truly stupid things (i.e. overdrink, have illicit sex, etc.) |
My wife realized the incurable nature of my audiophilia years ago. She was greatly relieved when I determined to build my own room; it meant she would be free from the incessant tinkering with the system.
You should try the polishing treatment, and I'll try the marker/edge treatment. We can compare notes here. That'll drive Shadorne crazy! ;)
For starters, I have heard that one is to use a green marker. Did you stick with green. How about blue? Black? I suspect yellow highlighter would not work as well? Any particular brand of marker you prefer? ;)
When dealing with $10k components and high end speakers, I would assert that one had better hear such influcences as a power cable change, disc treatment, etc. or else the designation "audiophile component" is questionable. If these higher end pieces can do no better than Target mini systems at revealing nuances or treatments, then there's no point in buying them. Then you may as well head to the local electronic store's going-bankrupt sale. Far be it from problematic; if the serious audio gear can parse the bits and do it better with a treated CD, then that's a doggone highly calibrated device! Now, if the sound was worse after disc treatment, then I'd say the laser assembly either had extremely fine tuned parameters in which to operate, or it was not so well built.
But the argument of making improved performance via altered media an issue in terms of quality of the player/DAC? I don't see the logic in that, especially when it can be done with the DAC1. When a badly scratched disc is inserted into a player and it doesn't work properly, we don't say the player is defective or has a problem. However, when an "enhanced" disc is inserted and the player peforms better, we say it has a problem? Go figure. :)
Thankfully, the fine rigs I have used all revealed these things, and consistently so. I have not run into an audiophile cdp which could not be improved upon through disc treatment. The higher end the rig, the more such influences are heard.
|
Shadorne, You believe in a process that's slow and neigh unto imperceptible which changes components over 1,000 hours, but you do not believe that disc treatment can immediately influence the sound of media (or how a player audibly processes it).
You are skating on thinner intellectual ice than I am.
I can demonstrate my process/change in about two minutes and ten seconds (about two minutes to process the disc, and about ten seconds of listening to experience/verify the change). How would you demonstrate yours?
I'm not accepting your anecdotal evidence. However you can move from my anecdotal evidence to certainty in about two minutes. :) |
Shadorne, yes it might be possible that your gear is not up to the task. I hadn't considered that (as I was making a general point in my previous post comparing $10k to around $100 systems, not alluding to any deficiencies in your system), but it's a potentially valid point you bring up. ;)
However, having conducted similar tests even on the aforementioned mini-systems from the likes of Target, I think yours probably would display the same ability to reveal the distinction between an untreated and treated disc. :)
Re: Burn in, so you support your position because X number of others say it's so, as you said, "if it is imperceptible then how come so many people claim to hear it?"
Hmmmm... I would say that is precisely MY argument as regards CD treatment! An argument from experience, and what we would call anecdotal evidence, not a measurement. So, if pressed on the matter you turn to the received wisdom versus testing when it comes to break in? But I am not allowed to as you have written off CD treatments. Interesting, considering I'm calling on you to conduct my test, not just accept it because I say so. I see more than a bit of inconsistency there.
Sorry, but there's no Touche coming your way; I have found in this particular discussion your logic insipid, your rationale more emotional than factual. (For instance, turning the quote from Stereophile to support your position.) The community can make up its mind whether you defended your position well. However, the fact stands that I have virtually begged (pun!) you to falsify what I claim, and due to whatever impediment resides in your mind you refuse to do so. :)
There is only one way for a log jam like this to be broken, and that's by you accepting my challenge. Barring that, I finalize, "So be it."
Blessings to you, Shadorne. Though we disagree firmly here, I think you are an intelligent man and an interesting individual to banter with. I enjoy your posts; I got a kick out of your comment on the Toyota Camry thread! :) |
Eldartford, I have said that the disc which is treated sounds louder than one which is untreated. The phrase "sounds" is perceptual. I would not assert that it actually increases level. However, that is what it sounds like, there is that much of a change in the sound when discs are treated. The entire performance seems much larger, more clean and extended, and louder. On an $80K rig with true full range speakers it's not subtle at all. I have never had a skeptic fail to be swayed after hearing the results. Neither the previous-skeptics nor I have a difinitive explanation, but the results are - yes - undeniable.
Your analogies to UFO's are strained. However, I did see a UFO once. It was orange and triangular, and I do not recall it making a sound, though tried listening for it. It flew like an airplane (straight, not terrifically fast) but, again, it made no sound. I was about 12 at the time, and I told my parents. They scoffed at it, until the next moring Paul Harvey speaking through the kitchen radio announced, "Numerous UFO sightings over Northern Illinois and Southern Wisconsin last night..." My mother was in the kitchen - you should have seen her face! The UFO was a plane painted with gray and florescent stripes taking air samples at dusk as it was flying North. In the twilight at its height it appeared to the naked eye as an orange triangle. The lack of sound was likely due to the influence of wind.
Perceptions are not always wrong. The answer to what lies behind the perceptions is usually logically explainable. However, to scoff at someone who is experiencing something perceptually is often nothing other than arrogance.
I happen not to believe in aliens. I hold that all "UFO" sightings have logical, natural explanations. However, that does not stop people from seeing things which they cannot explain.
Similarly, when individuals like myself report as accurately as we can the experiences we have when conducting listening tests, it's not helpful for someone to argue that we are delusional (placebo effect). So, kindly get off your arrogant UFO analogies. :)
Shadorne fumbled the ball. How would you like to conduct the simple disc treatment/listening test? Will you take the same position that because you already "know" it can't change the outcome you won't conduct the test?
If so, we are assembling a very interesting case study for objectivist behavior. :) |
Eldartford, you're big on the phrase, "I don't think..." Why not do the test? You might be less apt to declare, "I don't think," in the future when you haven't the experience. :)
This is application, not theory. You can spew theory all day long and it won't get resolved. Only by conducting the test will it get resolved.
The arrogance in your UFO comment was the intellectual put down, as you, "intented to poke a bit of fun," and "get a rise out of true belivers." That's arrogance, when the opposing viewpoint is dismissed out of hand through belittling comments. You can attempt to excuse it as humor, but I'll call you on it. :)
So, are you going to set listening level, listen to a track on a disc, apply the polish and wipe clean, reinsert and replay the track? If you can't believe your ears for the astonishment, conduct the test on several more discs. The improvement from tretment will be consistent on every disc, as would be expected.
Let me know how it goes. :)
|
Eldartford, great response! Thoughtful, considerate, the kind of discussion we can have on thes topics! Kudos! No nose out of joint here; I argue strenuously at times, but I put a lot of these :) in the text to indicate I'm not angry. :) I can get intense, but I try to keep it in perspective (i.e. not wrecking my listening session last night).
I'll take your word for it that the Bose sounds unusually good in that room. :)
If I try Rain-X on my dashboard and my gas mileage improves, would you believe it? ;) Had to throw that one in for fun.
I don't see the analogy as, well... analogous. If you had said, "put Rain-X into the gas tank," then there would be a connection (For any dullards among us, I'm NOT recommending it!). The disc treatment does touch directly (Well, actually, it doesn't directly TOUCH it...)on the performance of the laser assembly, so the issue is direct, not peripheral, as in the car dashboard illustration. For that reason, no, I would not believe you if you told me that it improved mileage. However, if you discussed an adjustment relating to the engine or drive train then I would be without evidence to contradict you unless I tried it out. That is the situation with the disc treatment. It does touch (there we go again...) upon the operation of the laser assembly.
Yes, I would have nothing to say about the optical gear you work with. I also do not repeat the treatments on CD's. It is permanent from my experience, one treatment is "eternal". :) I tested that as well, pulling out discs that had been treated three years ago and re-treating them. Zero additional gain, zero additional audible improvement. This was consistent with my thinking that the gain comes from the initial treatment. Either removal of a coating or making the surface more highly reflective (or both) contributes to the advantage of treating them. In my experience it never needs repeating.
My discs have remained in perfect condition, and some I have had treated for more than five or six years. I wrote an article about Jena Labs' disc treatment product, but was cleaning discs prior to that. I have used a variety of treatments, from simple washing with dish soap and water, to "mystery" solutions, and have used the aforementioned Jena Labs system, which they point out is not a polish, as well as Turtle Wax. If anyone wants to use car polish, I will add a disclaimer that it's not designed for CD's. If you are anxious about potential damage to discs, then use only "approved" solutions by audio manufacturers.
I have found typically two very discernible levels of improvement; one level from cleaning type activites, and the other by polishing type activities. Frankly, now I simply skip the cleaning step and go right to the polish step. The results seem to be the same as if I had cleaned prior to polishing.
Eldartford, I am impressed that you are willing to consider a test. You are more open to practical discovery than I gave you credit for. I would urge you, however, to try two differerent "tests".
#1 Do your critical listening at the level desired. Then, use a harmless cleaning solution, i.e. Dish soap and water, or an audio industry cleaning solution. Conduct listening comparison test. Then, return to the "shop" and polish the disc, with either Rain-X or polish. Once again conduct listening session.
-I'm not sure of your rig or of your (I say this sincerely, not jokingly) hearing acuity, but I believe you should easily hear improvement with the second step for sure.
#2 Remove the cleaning step from the test. Simply compare the polished and unpolished disc. In my experience the polish is the key to the result. And it is with this method that the effect becomes most noticeable.
I would be very interested in what you discover. I think the distinction in sound is so great that I do not need to tell you to approach the test "with an open mind." If it works as it has in my system, the difference will be immeditate and significantly noticeable. You may want to conduct the test with others, i.e. family members, as well once you have done it. :) |
I know the word Kudos; I didn't know you two have a history. By all means, carry on with the repartee. :) |
Eldartford, you are correct; I have never used CD treatments as a repair method. My goal is entirely improved sonics. There seems to be some confusion here about scratch repairs and sonics. Any scratch repair in my usage of polishes is entirely incidental.
I wanted to clarify so that you do not think the challenge/concept of CD treatment stems mostly from repairs. My discussion pertains to the usage of disc treatments solely for change/improvement of the sound. |
Rodman, know when enough's enough. The man is actually trying it. I give him credit, as he's willing to investigate what he feels is contradictory to his understanding. He doesn't need hecklers. :)
I'm as "up for a good joke" as anyone but I'm serious about the advantages of disc treatment. It won't help the cause if he's angry or feels he's being mocked for trying it.
If the bottle says it's no good for plastics I would not use it. There are too many other good solutions. It's not worth wrecking a CD long term for the change in sound. I recommend products which will effect the result as well as protect the surface; plastic polish as opposed to Rain-X. |
Eldartford, thank you for conducting a test of the disc treatment. I respect people who actually will try such things. I also will accept your experience and not debate it. Variety of experiences makes for interesting exchanges between audio lovers. |
Not in the least. I have said before and maintain now that I have heard the difference in my rig between treated and untreated discs clearly. I simply wanted to thank a man who was willing to actually try it. I cannot explain why he did not hear it. I also am not going to continue debate with someone who has tried and did not hear the change. That would be foolish. I will vigorously debate those who argue only from hunches, but there is no value arguing when someone tried and it failed.
I believe due to hearing abilities, the type of treatment used (I much prefer polishing to cleaning), environment, etc. that some will hear it easily and others will not. I have a nearly acoustically perfect room, so even subtle changes are quite readily heard.
If the changes due to treatment were such that I couldn't be sure I had heard them, I wouldn't bother discussing it.
I also make judgments based upon what others say they can or cannot hear. If someone says they cannot hear what I feel should be easily heard, you can bet I won't trust their opinion.
I have had audiophiles come into my room, and I have conducted listening tests on such things as power cords and disc treatments. They have insisted that there is no change. In the course of time I found out they played in live bands extensively. Uh, huh. They had hearing loss. No way would I trust their judgment in what could be heard. :)
It's one thing to have a variance in opinion between what is "preferred" sound. It's another altogether not to even detect the sound. I'm not judging Eldartford on his test; I wasn't there. But I certainly have not been changed in my conclusions from my listening tests. |
Eldartford, Yes, I did see your comment on the test being difficult and subjective; I agree in essence. I was not attacking you in my last post, merely stating real possibilities when people conduct these tests. There will be some with hearing issues, some with room issues, some who try cleaners versus polish, etc. These all influence the outcome.
Nasaman, frankly, this has been quite the civil conversation once we got past the initial jousting. :) So far, Eldartford is the only skeptic to actually conduct a test, and I respect his efforts to look into it.
There really should be no need to listen to the track over and over. Find music you like and know well; then select the track or two you want to work with. Polish the disc. Then re-listen. The difference should be so obvious that previous listening saturation should not be needed.
I found an old bottle of Rain-X in my garage! Ha! Now I can find a disc or two and see how efficacious the Rain-x treatment is. It would not surprise me if it comes nowhere near to the improvement of using a polish. It will be interesting to check that. |
I will likely use Rain-X first on discs and compare to the untreated disc. Then, I will polish the disc and see if there is further improvement. I found that any type of cleaner had much less effect on the sound post-treatment than polish. Even cleaned CDs made a remarkable improvement after being polished. That's why I ultimiately skipped cleaning and went straight to polishing.
If a Rain-X treated disc still shows large improvement after polishing, then I will skip use of Rain-X, as it would only be comparable to cleaning.
I may run down to the used CD place today, find some new music and have a stack of discs to work with. You know, in the name of science, discovery and all that stuff! ;) Also a convenient excuse to get new music! |
Nasaman, This is an interesting post you have written. I applaud you for trying the treatment, but I would encourage you to try other substances (not inhaling or injecting!) as well, as I found that different treatments yield different degrees of the result you speak of.
Two things you said stand out in my mind:
"Dynamic was a bit improved, meaning it was slightly louder." I have been saying that the perception is that the treated disc will sound louder. I was challenged by Eldartford on that, as though I was suggesting there would be an actual increase. I have never suggested that the level actually changes, however, those who hear the difference seem to agree that it does perceptually sound louder. Could this be due to the background noise being diminished - the sense of silence you seem to notice? (I was going to say "sense of silence you hear" which would have been ludicrous, and which critics would have had a field day with! :) )
I enjoyed your thought, "It was almost like to compare a Cassette tape to a CD," as it reminded me of the many years I recorded from CD onto tape. I still have my lovely Nakamichi tape deck sitting in my office. Haven't turned it on in years. I could get the playback on the tape extremely close to disc, but always lacking that last little bit of vibrancy, of immediacy which was clear with CD playback. Yes, this is a very similar difference between the two. The treated disc sounds a bit more snappy, vibrant, clean.
It really is remarkable how something so simple as treatment has that much of an effect on the sound. You will find yourself rushing to treat many of your favorite discs to hear them again.
Finally, I did not sense any diminishment or distortion of the treble on treated discs. All the parts of the frequency spectrum and all the music is consistently cleaner and clearer. It is possible your ears were adjusting to the difference in presentation; as you said, it "went away" in about 30 seconds. My guess is that you will come to love the super-clear/clean treble from treated discs. It is one of the bonuses I have received from the effort of treating them. :)
I am guessing that those with hearing loss will be among those who cannot discern the difference between a treated and untreated disc. There is to my ear quite a noticeable distinction, but I have excellent hearing and am listening on an extremely high end rig. These two together certainly can make the difference between hearing it easily and not. Let me be clear that I am not attacking anyone's rig, not diminishing anyone's abilities, simply stating the facts - there will be people and conditions which will not as easily reveal the difference in sound. Under the correct conditions it should be quite obvious. No massive "scientific" experiments needed. If one has to wonder if they're hearing a change, then it's not worth the time and effort; however, that does not necessarily mean there is no change. I would not waste my time on treating discs if I had to spend two seconds wondering about if there was a significant change in sound. I am far too practical and logical to waste my energy on things which are not clearly beneficial. No one argues about the efficacy of cleaning albums. In my experience this is every bit as critical, every bit as beneficial to the Redbook user with the proper conditions to hear it. :)
|
Oops, my retraction was supposed to be of the nonsequitur, "...sound of silence" ;) |
