Rain-X as CD Enhancement Treatment

At high velocity where aerodynamic friction becomes significant, it may be true that the smooth surface presented by Rain-X on a windshield may increase both maximum velocity and gas mileage.

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. :)

Douglas_schroeder...Sorry about the "I don't think" phrase. I will try to remember to use "IMHO" which seems to be acceptable :-)

If RainX costs only $2.99 I will try it. I can always use the stuff on my car. (Their washer fluid is excellent). But, probably not on the dashboard.

OK Guys...This whole thing is supposed to be fun. Don't get your nose out of joint.

Rodman99999...The Bose issue is a perfect example of the "you won't believe it until you try it" arguement. I posted about the UNEXPECTED good sound from the hated Bose901 speakers when used in a very large swimming pool room. I took the trouble to comment on this because it was so unexpected. We can speculate about why this is so. I attribute it to the large unobstructed reflective wall behind the speakers, and replacement of the Bose equalizer with a Behringer DEQ2496. If I were to do the RainX experiment I would naturally use my "good" system with the Maggies.

Douglas_schroeder...If I told you that RainX on your dashboard would dramaticly improve your car's gas milage, would you think it worth trying?

As I have mentioned before I have absolutely zero problem with CDs and DVDs skipping. Never have with several players since CDs were invented. I never clean CDs (unless I spill coffee on them or something like that. I have a theory that frequent cleaning is the cause of the problems that some folk report. I know that the precision optical devices which are used in my work are dusted off with a soft brush once a year or so. Cleaning is detramental to them, and CDs may be the same.

He won't hear any difference on Blose 901's anyway(hee hee). What a waste of keystrokes!

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. :)

Douglas_schroeder...The way to make music subjectively louder is to add distortion! But I don't think your treatment does that either.

My closing remark about UFOs was not arrogant, but just intended to poke a bit of fun, and get a rise out of the true believers. I guess I succeeded.

"Bit is just bits," someone said.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," Freud said.

But Freud also said:

"My boy, smoking is one of the greatest and cheapest enjoyments in life, and if you decide in advance not to smoke, I can only feel sorry for you." (Freud: A Life for Our Time. Peter Gay, 1989, Anchor Books/Doubleday.)

Shadorne fumbled the ball.

Nah - you just imagined it - wishful thinking - the "placebo" effect!

Admit it - you treated the ball with Rain-X so you expected me to drop it! ;-)

we are assembling a very interesting case study for objectivist behavior.

You are obviously referring to me but I would counter by the simple observation that I am one of hundreds of millions of people around the world who would not dream of doing what you suggest unless it was to fix a badly scratched CD that nolonger played properly. Therefore I am actually pretty dull & boring sitting and sharing similar views to the vast majority of CD listeners (who don't polish their CD collection with Rain-X or mark them with green markers).

You however are the "very interesting case study for objectivist behavior"...sitting somewhere way off the end of the bell curve ;-)

More seriously, this banter has been a fun diversion and I am glad the gibes were kept civil & polite. I really don't have much more I can add or share on this matter. I feel certain we are connected through our enjoyment of music and a pursuit of our own respective ideals in audio reproduction equipment even if we don't see eye to eye on Rain-X or what defines excellent equipment (robust vs resolving).

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, yea, and many believed in alchemy. Please read what I said about treated disc, in my experience not sounding any different. I have withstood some grief about that from others more accustomed to listening first.

Shadorne, at last you are at least seeking alternative hypotheses. All was doing is reporting several observations.

Shadorne...I don't think that Tbg is talking about digital errors, which, as you described, are completely avoided by use of the RS error-correcting code. Anyone who claims that "bits ain't bits" is simply ignorant of digital technology. Tbg says that identical (bit for bit) files sound different when run through the same D/A, amplification, and speakers. In particular it's been said that the sound is louder after the CD is treated. Absurd!

I was not there when this treatment was demo'd so I can't dispute the statement that many people heard a difference. But the reason is not to be found in the digital domain. Many people believe in UFOs.

Shadorne, yes, but how to you account for the differences in sound that I described? Please don't say we only think we heard them.

If what you heard is similar to what is decribed on DAGOGO by Norm Luttbeg then it sounds like it was reduced jitter. This can be explained if you think about a CD rotating and vibrating or the "burned layer" (usually a dye) being uneven from the burner (vibrating disc as it is burnt). The laser pick up will need to make contiunous adjustments in order to remain in focus - since the adjustments are likely repeated upon each revolution of the disc then you create a sinusoidal adjustment to the laser.

If the CDP has poor isolation between the laser ciruitry and the DAC then you can create jitter. Normally jitter is most audible when it is NOT RANDOM - i.e when it is periodical. You get sidebands not unlike IMD distortion rather than white noise thay you might get from completely random jitter.

The above would be a possible hypothetical "complex" explanation. In both cases (mat or no mat) the CD is bit perfect but the equipment is underperforming due to additional complexities in reading an uneven disc.

However, I would be cautious about jumping to conclusions, testing like this is a minefield. The above is just one of many possible answers. For example, another explantion could simply be the setting of the volume - playing the treated CD a mere 1 db SPL louder would probably be just enough for everyone to hear an improvement without anyone noticing the volume was slightly different.

Anyway, the fact that Exact copy proved that the two discs were identical (if we accept that) then we are led to suspect either the equipment playback capability or test conditions as suspect. If I was sure it was the gear and had completely eliminated everything else then I'd get rid of the CDP and find one more reliable that does not need a band aid "mat" to work properly.

I'll add that when I modded that Sony, I started with changes to power into the optics, motor, and servo, and worked my way through the various digital circuits, dealing with replacement of the master clock last. I wanted to be able to distinguish between collective changes made in the digital domain and a clock upgrade. Taken together, changes in the digital section other than the clock, surpassed the replacement clock in significance. Go figure.

I'm curious how far into the digital domain Shadorne extends his viewpoint that bits are bits. I too can think of no explanation for why CD media tweaks-- or for that matter tweaks to the optical section of any transport-- should impact sound. And yet I have heard it, and moreover the industry has produced continuous improvement in the manufacture of transport optics & mechanicals up to the current estimable TEAC VRDS-NEO.

Moreover, I have two transports that demonstrate conclusively that "bit ain't just bits." One is a Sony SCD-1, in which the digital section has been modified with improvements to power and passive components in the digital signal path; the other is a stock 777ES (which in stock form has a digital section identical to a stock SCD-1.) I can listen to just the transport sections of both units through identical PDIF cable and identical external Theta Gen 5a DAC, and hear a night and day difference. Go figure.

Shadorne, yes, but how to you account for the differences in sound that I described? Please don't say we only think we heard them. The room at the RMAF was full of skeptics who only tolerated John Tucker doing this on his system. All muttered disbelief when they heard the difference and only John said he had to get one of those puppies. Several others, however, asked me in the hall where they might buy one.

I suspect strongly that "bits ain't bits."

That is where we differ in belief. After many years of "brainwashing" in computer science, time series analysis, physics, maths etc. - a lot of it in graduate school courses in signal processing. I have complete faith in digital. I trust it.

Although many implementations of digital to analog conversions do have problems and quality is variable - digital data is tremendously robust and as perfect as we want or design it to be. So a data bit can be preserved very accurately even if an individual "pit" on a CD may be a rather unreliable thing. It is miraculously black and white. You can copy digital stuff perfectly thousands of times. This is NOT becuase the analog storage devices are so good. In fact analog storage devices are rather inaccurate with an average hardrive/CD/DVD having many faults. The key is in the mathematics and data redundant overhead...digital allows us stick data through large polynomials etc. and generate a whole bunch of redundant data which is all related to the raw data. Think of a 3 x 3 matrix filled with numbers where you are also given the sum for each row and column (extra redundant data). You can lose information in the square or in the redundnat data and still reconstruct the entire square perfectly because you know that it is encoded with the relationship that the rows and columns add up to the extra redundant numbers stored along with the raw data.

All this information is written onto the analog media - the data AND the extra redundant information. The redundant information allows the software to mathematically reconstruct the data perfectly DESPITE plenty of imperfections in the media. The less perfect the media - the more redundant data you need in order to maintain perfect precision.

I understand why people are skeptical - that mathematics has such power to add incredible precision to our imprecise world is one of the technological marvels of this century. Everything relies on this - including your cellphone and your bank statements and not to mention everything you read on these forums.

Philosphically it presents a real challenge to our thinking. Digital is a very similar challenge akin to those who had to face the evidence that the earth was not actually flat. Everything we see day in and day out in our lives tells us the Earth is flat - it looks that way from our perspective! It is even diffiult today for us to conceptualize that people on the other side of this large ball do NOT fall off. All this goes completely against ALL our daily experiences and observations about what we see around us. Digital is the same. The incredible precision that comes through mathematics defies everything we know and observe about the ordinary world around us. Nothing we see or touch is ever as precise as the mathematical constructs used...even the CD itself is woefully imprecise as is anything we can manufacture...but it is the theoretical mathematical constructs that we use to store bits on a CD that makes the "DATA" it holds extremely precise.

Eldartford, if you rip the same disc to a harddrive, once without the Millennium cd mat and once with it both using the same software and hardware (with Exact Copy reporting no errors and the same confidence) and then listen in the identical system and everyone "hears" a difference with probably 90% holding your view initially, is it logical to say there can be no difference?

I have had the same experience with discs painted with AVM and not, but various cleaning treatments seem to do nothing. I certainly would not claim to be expert in things digitial, but I do hear compressions degradation of sound even if it is supposedly loseless and I do hear differences in digital cables. I suspect strongly that "bits ain't bits."

semi-deaf, nay-saying, untesting but highly opinionated termites out of the woodwork

Good one!

Craig has actually stumbled on a free clinic!!!

Hey Craig- Did you have any idea that posting your very successful experiments and results would bring these semi-deaf, nay-saying, untesting but highly opinionated termites out of the woodwork? =8^)

Tbg...If you "hear a difference between two digital copies that are identical" (to quote you) then your sense of hearing involves more than sonic vibration of the air. All I said it that for information in the digital domain, (before the D/A, amplification, and loudspeaker) an exact and completely non-subjective comparison can be made.

I guess you are right...you don't understand logic.

Hmmmm... I would say that is precisely MY argument as regards CD treatment!

Yes indeed, I adopted your description regarding the incredibly sensitive nature of a highly resolving system that would be (in your words) a "designated audiophile component". I accepted it as "fact" just to see what likely conclusions could be expected about the performance of said system.

Where we differ is on the kind of performance which is highly desirable to you but not so desirable to me.

Perhaps this is reflected in the way our carefuly-selected, respective systems perform.

Perhaps this accounts for the strong disagreement about the efficacy of high end cables, interconnects, burn-in and the degree to which many tweaks impact the sound.

I imagine you are rightfully proud because your system responds differently to a power cord or car wax treatment on the CD. That is indeed amazing - kudos to you for obtaining such a highly resolving system! Peace.

Easy test to see if Rain-X works: apply it per its instructions to a scratched CD that normally skips (apply it and polish radially). Then play. Because Rain-X is essentially a chemical polish, filling in microscopic divots in the plastic (or windshield glass)--or, in this case, scratches in the CD's surface--the laser will now (unless it was scratched pretty badly) read the disc without error. Though the audible difference to an unscratched CD would obviously be less (as it played OK in the first place), it does seem reasonable to think there would be an audible difference: the laser's job of reading through the clear plastic surface of the disc to the aluminum pits has been made optically easier in any case.

Though I don't hear a big difference, I do use Rain-X on some CDs and to repair scratched discs and have done so for 10 or so years without any detrimental effect. You don't need to apply it before every listen, anyhow, any more than you need to apply it to your windshield before every drive.

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! :)

Shadorne, You mock, "What we "clearly observe" is the truth. Our perceptions are reality." How do you think we came up with the laws of engineering?

Eldartford, again, I don't understand your logic. If the ear is the best measurement device and it hears a difference between two digital copies that are identical, are not the copies different?

IMHO, if many hear a difference, good science needs to marshal itself to account for observations of differences where science has said there should be none. Critics are also victim to selective bias when they expect no differences and hear none.

The ear is arguably the best measurement device when what you are measuring is sound...say the output of a loudspeaker. However, when evaluating what goes on in the digital domain review of digital data streams (or files) is arguably perfect. A bit-for-bit comparison of two files is relatively easy to do if you have the right facilities, and will tell you for sure if the tweak caused any change. If there was a bit changed here or there (IMHO unlikely) you could review the nature of the changes and decide if any audible result could be expected.

In the Stereophile article, it's interesting how much credible scientific measurement & analysis the authors poured into examining a clearly observable phenomenon that in the end eluded the current limitations of science. CD Stop Light got to the heart that magazine's philosophy of separating equipment reviews (and usually associated equipment reviewers) into two camps, who separately measure specifications and conduct listening tests. Sometimes listening perceptions deviate from expectations based upon measured specs. But to dismiss the ear as an instrument is maladroit. Certainly not all reviewers are unbiased, but since the reviewer in the article claimed to bring scepticism into his review, his positive opinion formed after listening should be taken seriously. Moreover, when everyone in a large enough statistical sample forms a positive opinion through listening, except for one poster who refuses to join the experiment, then one must seriously consider that positive and negative biases eventually cancel out-- unless like David Hume you entertain the probability of mass hallucination in any public forum.

Moveover, the opinion that positive bias prevails among Audiophiles to the point that any change is perceived as an improvement, is easily controverted by the high incidence of equipment churn and audiophile nervosa.

the belief in the Placebo effect to explain clear observation is unscientific.

Tbg,

That is a good one! What we "clearly observe" is the truth. Our perceptions are reality. A lot of homeopathic medicine manufacturers would be delighted with this version of the world. They also cannot prove their products work in medical trials but people swear by them. I must remember to put on my copper bracelet with magnets.

But lets not drift into philosophy - above I already pointed out some useful psychology to help explain how people sense/perceive/think/judge the world differently.

"Target" components is the synonym given by some audiophiles to the kind of system I have chosen. Gear that is not resolving enough to change in response to the mere beating of a butterfly's wings from across a field. It just plays music reliably - what is on the source is pretty much what comes out of the speakers. Of course it sounds awful but I am happy with it. I simply would not want a system that played music unreliably (changes sound audibly with the change of power cord or any other minor detail). Surely this is not so hard to understand ?

Shadorne, the belief in the Placebo effect to explain clear observation is unscientific. Selectivity bias works both ways as if you don't want to hear a benefit you will not. If people hear a difference and the precepts of engineering cannot explain such differences, it demands better science.

I find it incredible that your embrace the statement in Stereophile and ignore the statement, "...there are things going on in digital audio that have not been identified, but influence sonic characteristics." Engineering schools, not withstanding, we don't know all natural phenomena.

I don't understand your decision to embrace "target" components, that is your decision, BUT is NOT justified on scientific bases.

You believe in a process that's slow and neigh unto imperceptible which changes components over 1,000 hours,

Actually I don't - at least not for my crap target gear.

My example was just taking the attributes commonly ascribed to a designated "audiophile component" by yourself and others and making a logical conclusion.

Now you say burn-in is imperceptible - well if it is imperceptible then how come so many people claim to hear it?

I see no point to going any further as this is becoming ridiculous - it is becoming just an argument for arguments sake. I don't want to continue to contribute to this. i'll finish by saying that this statement by stereophile just about sums things up

From my measurements, it is apparent that none of these CD tweaks have any effect on a player's error-correction ability or on the amount of jitter in the HF signal. However, it is beyond doubt that they increase the musicality of CDs. Just as in analog audio, there are things going on in digital audio that have not been identified, but influence sonic characteristics.

There are indeed things going on inside the head of the listener and this has been documented tens of thousands of times: a very well understood scientific phenomenon called "The Placebo Effect". Humans are not machines. We are not instruments of precision. Our perceptive senses are significantly modified by our expectations.

The only question is "Why do some people refuse to accept the obvious conclusion?" I explained in several posts above with a reference to Jung and Myers Briggs...a lot has to do with personality as to whether a particular individual is willing to accept that his/her own perceptions are easily modified by his/her expectations.

Here is thorough early treatise from Stereophile on the subject of these tweaks. Includes technical discussion of related optical and electrical factors.

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/590jitter/

Relevant extracts from the non-technical sections of the article:

"The intensity of my interest in the subject was heightened by a product called "CD Stoplight," marketed by AudioPrism. CD Stoplight is a green paint applied to the outside edge of a CD (not the disc surface, but the 1.2mm disc thickness) that reportedly improves sound quality. I could not in my wildest imagination see how green paint on the disc edge could change, for better or worse, a CD's sound. However, trusting my ears as the definitive test, I compared treated to untreated discs and was flabbergasted. Soundstage depth increased, mids and highs were smoother with less grain, and the presentation became more musically involving."

"The makers of CD Stoplight claim to have measured a difference in the recovered analog output signal with a treated disc. They played a pure tone from a test disc and measured the spectral content on either side of the tone. Reportedly, a CD Stoplight-treated disc produces lower-amplitude sidebands around the pure frequency. Just as this was going to press, AudioPrism faxed me graphs made on a Hewlett-Packard spectrum analyzer that support their findings. Without knowing all the measurement details, the graphs do appear to show a slightly lower noise floor after the addition of CD Stoplight."

"From my measurements, it is apparent that none of these CD tweaks have any effect on a player's error-correction ability or on the amount of jitter in the HF signal. However, it is beyond doubt that they increase the musicality of CDs. Just as in analog audio, there are things going on in digital audio that have not been identified, but influence sonic characteristics. There is a real need to explore these questions through empirical measurement and by listening. I am convinced that undiscovered optical phenomena in CD playback affect sound quality. Only by combining critical listening with the scientific method can these mysteries be solved.

"All our knowledge brings us nearer to our ignorance.""

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. :)

BTW: The Rain-X concept is(filling and polishing micro-scratches) to make glass too slick for water to adhere, and has worked wonderfully for me. I had my wipers go out on a Camaro, in a thunderstorm, some years back. Found an auto parts store, bought and applied the stuff. Never did bother to get the wipers fixed as long as I owned the car. If you live in a snow-belt state: Ice removal from the treated glass is simply a matter of hitting it once with your scraper, and the ice pops off in one sheet(no scraping). I've not tried it on any of my CDs, but don't doubt it would aid a LASER's ability to focus through a disc's surface .

The problems that polishes and green markers address has nothing to do with "jitter". LASERs can and will mistrack/misread, if skewed by scratches(microscopic or otherwise)on the disc's surface, or if picking up stray/reflected LASER light. Treated the inner and outer edges of the disc with GREEN marker has the effect of cancelling the reflections, as GREEN has the proper wavelength to absorb the LASER's red wavelength. I've tried green markers on some discs and did notice a slight tightening in the bass when played, but not enough to warrant continuation of the process with my other discs. Using UltraBit Platinum on my discs is another story altogether. Everything becomes more "focused" with regard to separation between voices(intrumental or vocal) on whatever is played. The video store I frequent has a great deal of trouble with sloppy people handling their rentals. The discs typically have a lot of scratches/abrasions, and the store uses an abrasive liquid and polishing machine on them(more damage). Over half the time, neither of my DVD players will read the DVDs without going mosaic, stopping or skipping to the next chapter at some point during play. When I treat such discs with the UBP, they play without a hitch, and the picture is noticably sharper as well. Neither of my DVD players are cheap, or have anything wrong with them. My CD player is a Balanced Audio Technology VK-D5 and needs nothing with regard to performance enhancement. Using a good polish to fill and eliminate anything on your software(CD or DVD) that might affect your LASER's focus will definately enhance it's performance, and the resultant playback sound/picture. Then again- Your ability to appreciate the improvements would depend on your systems resolution, and/or your aural/visual acuity. No doubt the possibility one's convictions being found wrong stops a lot of people from ever trying some things. Yet they never hesitate to voice their unfounded opinions. Freedom of Speech IS precious though.

I don't understand why you would say a piece of equipment never sounds the same twice.I also don't understand why you would say "target" quality gear always sounds the same

Tbg,

It was just a simple game of logic. If a designated "audiophile component" is expected to make any small changes clearly audible then it stands to reason that it is very unlikely to ever sound the same twice. (Small changes would be a power cord - heat - break-in - the shine on the CD surface - you know all the examples I have been given).

Given that the power quality from the utility company is varying all the time depending on what is or is not in use along your street then given any audio device inherently as sensitive as described above it just stands to reason it will rarely, if ever, sound the same. "Target" gear being less sensitive will surely behave in the opposite way - it may not sound good but it won't be as sensitive to minute details and is much more likley to always sound the same.

Going into this experiment I will admit to being biased in favor of Rain-X. Some years ago Andy Rooney of 60 Minutes attempted to debunk this fine product as an example of consumer hucksterism. He scoffed at it, noting with some pride the superiority of the good ole fashioned American-made windshield wiper. He then made a half-hearted palsied attempt to rub Rain-X into an automobile windshield before watching it fail to work. Now I have used this product successfully for many years, and know that for it to work as designed, one must carefully follow directions and apply generously, and reapply again after drying. Generally speaking, one may take any manufacturer's claim to apply its product twice as an exploitative attempt to increase user consumption, but in the case of Rain-X, this is not a valid criticism. Rain-X works and sheds rain better than the best windshield wipers at speeds above 30 mph. Shadorne, please give Rain-X a chance, remembering always to follow the directions.

Guys, I haven't been following this thread, but I must say it is the most civil discussion on this I have ever read.

I should say that I have spent a career testing methods and statistics as well as doing the best science I could given the difficulties of studying humans. I am a political science professor. Mine is very much a young and developing science and recently many political scientists have embraced the deductive ideas so prevalent in economics. For me to assume human rationality is a bridge too far. Rather I pursue an inductive science based on observations and trying to explain why there are differences. Such a science develops with many studies.

This predisposes me in audio to want to hear components, speakers, wires, etc. And to try to understand why one sounds better. My interest in music is to want the best sound I can get, but I also want to understand why one sounds better. Nevertheless, if something sounds better I will try to afford it.

I had undergraduate education in engineering as well as in the sciences. In my opinion engineering is about applying the findings of science to practical use. Its principles do not define what science is. In application to the question of cleaning cds, the engineer might well stick with the fundamental precepts. Some tweaks violate some of these precepts, but not necessarily natures laws or science. Also, of course, some tweaks may be scams, but violating precepts does necessarily means they are scams. Observations might well lead to better precepts.

I would give an example of quartz disks. I have tried many different quartz products or tweaks. In some places they have a very great benefit. In others no effect, and yet in others may ruin the sound. I hate to have to use these empirically, namely to always have to use trial and error. For someone to tell me that they could have no impact is grossly unscientific to me as it fails to account for the variability of the findings. Do I wish someone could "predict" where there would be benefits would be great.

Long ago, I tried Rain-X. I still have the bottle in my listening room. I did find some benefit, but very little. I found that use on my windshields did allow some avoidance of using my windshield wipers as water sheeted of more. Why this would have an effect on cds, I cannot understand. I can see how eyeglass cleaners would have more effect. Optrix in my opinion has a much greater effect than Rain-X. I do not use either now.

Shadorne, while I fully agree that equipment breakin takes a long time, I don't understand why you would say a piece of equipment never sounds the same twice. I also don't understand why you would say "target" quality gear always sounds the same. There are explanations for why gear breaks in and apart from drivers, most often this is several months or less. If you turn equipment off, it may take some time to get back to where it was, but once there it will change little.

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.

The anecdotal evidence for this seems irrefutable. To top it off, with break-in lasting sometimes 1000 hours or more - not atypical in an audiophile designated component - it seems quite plausible that most designated "audiophile components" will never sound the same twice, ever. I am happy with my "target" quality gear - it works for my tin ears. Thankfully, I get the same old crappy response every time.

I agree that the best components most clearly reveal the effect of tweaks. The clearer the window, the more visible the remaining smudge. I think this phenomenon is what accounts for the hyperbole of magazine reviewers, who when describing near-SOTA equipment appear to be making a big deals about splitting hairs. My view is that the hobby is all about closing the small gap between 9/10s and 10/10s, which separates a great system from realism. You never get there, but according to Zeno's paradox, through small steps you can close the gap by halves, and feel at each step like you've made a 50% improvement.

The question for anybody with budget constraints becomes what is the most cost-effective step at the margin. We all have different ways of looking at this. As a maker of DIY cables, I've always found that a dollar committed to improving electronics is preferable to that dollar spent on ANY commercial cable. Unfortunately, I have come to this conclusion after accumulating a drawer full of Synergistics, Audioquest, Tara, Goertz, & MIT cables. Yet there are those who on general principles will not spend one Yankee dollar to test the value proposition of a Sharpie.

I'll check out the Rainex. As my CD Stop Light is gone, I need to find another pen to revisit this experiment. The green Sharpie may be good. Geoff Kait likes a purple pen-- and in spite of pebbles & teleportation he's not always wrong.

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.

the Staedtler Lumucolor 357 is discontinued.

The Sharpie enhancer 007 may work as well

Far from an imaginative leap into brilliant pebbles & the like, the theory with the colored edge treatment is that it filters out refracted light that may otherwise be reintroduced into the optics. It's also conceivable that a shiny smooth surface provided by Rainex could minimize refraction. But whatever the science, it's generally accepted that jitter problems can be introduced through the optics. The Sony service documentation for my CDP includes a laser allignment procedure to use with a scope that is performed specifically to minimize jitter. I have personally found that improvements to DC power into the motor/servo mechanism of my SCD-1 make an audible improvement in the sound of the transport. And this is a CDP that in the original Stereophile review exhibited very low jitter in stock fitment. So the basic quality of the transport is not at issue.

"My wife...would definitely think I was completely wacko."

My wife feels this way about me, particularly in all things relating to audio. Unfortunately the problem is not that the slippery slope tends down toward pebbles, but rather upward toward $10K components. For her a $5 bottle of Rainex would be a welcome relief.

You consistently suggest to others that if there is a change to the sound through said treatments there is a "problem" with their gear

Absolutely correct. You got it. When you have to resort to green markers and fancy cables to get the right sound then the equipment is NOT doing its job properly. A CD player is not reading a CD properly. Or a speaker and amplifier are poorly matched. Or a Pre and power amp have problems (ground loops etc.)

Jitter is a problem which is well documented and undeniable. However it is an EQUIPMENT problem. Standard Redbook CD does not call for "green markers" in the standards. If a redbook player does not read a redbook CD properly then it is the fault of the EQUIPMENT => Get a better player.

I think a fear lies behind the unwillingness to test it out.

Not really. I well know that my equipment is far from perfect but that does not worry me. It is good enough for my tin ears. If there is any fear it is that I would be starting down a slippery path that eventually leads to magic pebbles or special acoustic tuned cups and directional cryogenic cables. My wife is an engineer too and she would definitely think I was completely wacko - if anything that would make me fearful or at least extremely embarassed to take such steps.

Douglas, while I think it's prudent to keep a balance between theoretical and empirical discussion, IMO the matter of jitter is a case in point that argues for an empirical approach involving an open mind and careful listening tests. As discussed in a recent Absolute Sound or Stereophile retrospective, at an early stage in RBCD, based on theoretical speculation, the International Society of Audio Engineers were luddites in their determination not to accept that jitter merited further consideration as a problem. But manufacturers persisted, and to this day we see continuing heroic efforts like Esoteric rubidium clock and Audiocom Ultraclock demonstrating that the ear can discern jitter down to a half billionth part. A leading recording engineer claims he can hear variations of a few picoseconds. So with respect to the problem of jitter, a little knowledge may be a dangerous thing if untested through listening.

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.)

Shadorne,

Webster's definition of scientific method: "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."

The problem in the digital domain is jitter, a widely accepted phenomenon. Your hypothesis (AFAIK based purely on theoretical reading) seems to be that that reclocking DACs, jitter jails, etc., reduce jitter introduced through optics & transport to irrevelevancy. Further data acquisition (testing of pens, surface treatments, transport mods, etc.) may test your hypothesis-- perhaps disproved by the evidence of your ears.

Admission: I use and enjoy CD Stop light.

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. :)

Touche...I don't consider anecdotal reports of CD sound improvement as a valid excuse to go treating my CD's with car wax or green markers, but you are being persistent ;-)

"My personality will not allow me to try it... "

I don't consider that a valid excuse, but you are being honest.

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?

True the money would not stop me. However, you would be amazed at the effects of years of scientific conditioning and brainwashing. I simply can't bring myself to perform what my preconditioning tells me would be a senseless task. It may seem strange but I will not waste one minute on car wax or green markers but I have spent many hours reading most of the orginal papers by Sony and Philips on the CD format and CIRC coding and countless technical documents from AES. People are wired differently.See this. The two camps often have trouble understanding eachothers behaviour. Each spends hours doing things that the other would think is pointless. Depending on where one sits in Myers Briggs one could have completely opposite opinion about the value of double blind testing.