Is anybody had experimnent some liquid to be spray on CD, to help having a better readings of CD ? What are your appreciations about them ? What do you think the product make, to have a better audition experience ? Thank you ?
Weebeesdad - Sorry for the low response. I try not to visit these forums too often.
The answer is that L'Art Du Son makes BOTH a CD cleaner/treatment and also a vinyl cleaner. I've never tried the vinyl treatment, but I hear it is good.
I use the CD treatment on every new CD I buy. When I first tried it, I would listen once before treating the CD (to judge the difference). I've long-since stopped doing that, as it improves every CD to some extent or another.
I've found that (physically) very well-produced CDs, like XRCDs and Reference Recordings are improved less dramatically than most.
I’m afraid there’s more to it than just cleaning and taking care of the CDs. That’s kind of the whole point. It’s because the REAL CD treatments, you know the ones, Optrix, Liquid Resolution, Auric Illuminator, Jena Labs, L’Art du Sond and a host of other sprays, liquids and enhancers actually IMPROVE the sound, not just clean the CD. Hel-loo! And the fact that they do improve the sound DEMONstrates a couple things - (1) CDs are not (rpt not) “perfect sound forever” and (2j even through the physical data on the CD cannot be altered the reading of the data by the CD laser can be improved. For starters the polycarbonate layer is only around 90% transparent.
@sisyphus51 Dumb question? Why is anyone (still) spending large sums of money on Compact Disc. And, why are we (still) debating snake oil treatments to make them tolerable?
Pretty much the same reason so many audiophiles still have a love for vinyl and enjoy periodically adding to their collections and spend good sums of money to buy nice gear to play them. Nothing so snake oil about most of, or at leas a good share of, the products we use to clean and take care of our valuable collections. To each their own...Jim
Dumb question? Why is anyone (still) spending large sums of money on Compact Disc. And, why are we (still) debating snake oil treatments to make them tolerable?
What I found to work best for me to clean, polish and remove static and fine scratches, on both CDs and DVDs, is a light spray of my Martin Guitar polish, wiped dry to a polish on the data side of the disc. I discovered this when we got some DVDs from the Library and found that some of the discs were so dirty, scratched and smudged that they wouldn’t play, without skipping or locking up. After using the guitar polish to clean and polish the discs, not only did they play through, the picture was very bright and clear. I started using the same polish on the data side of my used and older CDs, with the same results. Probably would be frowned on by some of the tech-buffs, but it works for me...Jim
There is a whole ritual I perform for the CDs in current rotation. It is rather effort intensive and time consuming. I will absolutely not listen to any CD without a minimum amount of treatment. The Full Monty includes home freezer two days, full coloring of the disc, including data side, black tape stiffeners on label side, Liquid Resolution spray, and some other things that are beyond scope and better left unmentioned.
Pop quiz: do they really use mold release compound in the manufacture of CDs or is that just an Old Wives Tale?
for what it is worth i copied this from another AG thread.
Thanks guys here's the response from Vin at Nordost
Dear Glen,
Thank
you for your inquiry. Actually, one of the demonstrations we do at
trade shows is to spray a CD with ECO3 and show the audience the
improvement it makes. It is quite effective in lowering the noise floor
and improving the dynamics of the system. When you use it on a CD you
should apply it only to the label side. Even though it is water based,
it will leave a slight film over many uses which is not a good thing on
the information side of your disc.
Because i use the PS Audio DMP player, some of these issues are not critical as it reads and rereads the info and then puts it into a cache. However i use this product and it seems to improve the sound a bit, but of course it is NOT to be used on the optical side, but only on the label side.https://nordost.com/accessories/eco-3x.php
I have not thought about AQ cd shine for a long time. I do recall seeing those ads in Stereophile circa 1990's. Never bought any though. It is amazing that this product still holds up in 2018. Happy Listening!
Aalenik - I see where L'ART DU SON is sold as a cleaner for vinyl records. I see no mention of use for CDs. Is there another product by this name which is specifically formulated for CD treatment, or are you using this vinyl cleaner "off label" for CDs as well? Thanks for your input...
Not sure where Rodman & Geoff are taking this thread, but regarding CD cleaning/treatment, I'll re-post what I wrote on that other thread (linked near the top of this one). The OP there took my advice and seems very pleased, so here it is again...
I've spent some time on this, so I'll share what I've found... for what it's worth.
In most cases, you only need to clean (or treat) new discs. Warm water & mild hand-soap will do about 90% of the job, but a good treatment will do even more (for better or worse - read on...).
I've tried a number of CD treatments, Ultrabit, Liquid Resolution, Shine-Ola and maybe a few more. All provided 'cleaner' sound, but also added brightness to the sonic balance. Liquid Res. was the most neutral of those above (but no longer available). HOWEVER...
the absolute BEST of all is L'ART DU SON. It not only cleans the CDS, it also provides a very natural sonic balance and almost seems to enrich the midrange. I use it on every new disc I buy. VERY highly recommended!
Whatever, "field" might be measured, what’s being measured(far as strength), is the field’s energy level. If fields are comprised of, "nothing", rather than energy, E=mc2 is wrong. https://physics.info/energy/ Trying to define it, is another matter, entirely(no pun intended).
It’s made of nothing. It’s a force. When you measure magnetic field you measure the strength of the field. You can forget about everything else. When you pull a car with a rope what is the force composed of? Nothing.
None of which explains OF WHAT magnetism is MADE, but- "All you need to know is that demagnetizing CDs or LPs improves the sound, or interconnects." and: AMEN(no offence)! Happy listening!
Actually, I find him trite and defensive. He could have explained that the atoms of magnetic material like magnets are aligned N to S or whatever and that nuclear forces are the STRONGEST force or whatever. Whereas as gravity is the WEAKEST force. This attitude of his is why he was ostracized when he was a member of the Rogers Commission investigating the Challenger disaster. I knew the guy who ostracized him, who was the director of the commission.
I couldn’t agree more! Regarding my last post: I just thought you may be interested, in what your favorite physicist(my assumption) had to say on the matter! You did pose the question, " Just one more thing. The web site you linked to edu Illinois Physics forum of some kind, as I recall, made some statements that magnetic fields were composed of photons. Since magnetic fields are stationary how can they be composed of photons that move at lightspeed?"
What magnetism is composed of is irrelevant. All you need to know is that demagnetizing CDs or LPs improves the sound, or interconnects. So I guess we can close this case.
As far as I know, no one knows(thus far) of what a magnetic field is composed. Like gravity, the THEORY is it’s a deformation of space/time (or not *) , caused by the presence of matter, coupled with the, "quantum spin"(which is itself an inaccurate term) of certain particles. Like so many things in our universe, magnetism’s effects can be measured, but- the actual mechanics of it’s operation remains a mystery. As far as concluding that debate, one may as well try to nail Jello to a wall. Even WITH a knowledge of Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Physics(ie: QED, the "Jewel of Physics") and their attendant mathematics. (Let’s see: should I mention either electroweak theory, or, "virtual photons"? NAH!) As I’ve said, so many times, "No one has all the answers." My apologies, to the OP, if I’ve caused a ripple in this thread’s continuum. (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-electric-charges-and-m/) (* https://physics.aps.org/story/v7/st27)
@geoffkait Not looking to argue as I didn't make that blog post and do not claim expertise in the matter. I don't see mention of "seeing" photons in the blog post you quoted above.
The first article posted by Rodman99999 stated the relationship of photons to electromagnetic waves as succinctly as I've had the fortune to read.
>>>>>The article, well forum actually, might have seemed succinct to you, but that doesn’t mean it was correct. It was someone’s opinion. Just some guy.
If the magnet is not moving, then the field is stationary, and there are no photons. Wiggle the magnet, and the field wiggles. If some of these wiggles propagate away from the magnet, then those are photons.
>>>>>As far as your understanding of wiggles moving away from a moving magnet being evidence of photons, well, I’d say that’s pretty absurd. In my opinion, of course. It would be unlikely you could see a photon moving. There are no slow photons.
The first article posted by Rodman99999 stated the relationship of photons to electromagnetic waves as succinctly as I've had the fortune to read. Saying "The magnetic field isn't made of photons. Photons are made of magnetic (rather, electromagnetic) fields. To be specific, photons are ripples in the electromagnetic field. So, a magnet is surrounded by a magnetic field. If the magnet is not moving, then the field is stationary, and there are no photons. Wiggle the magnet, and the field wiggles. If some of these wiggles propagate away from the magnet, then those are photons."
Just one more thing. The web site you linked to edu Illinois Physics forum of some kind, as I recall, made some statements that magnetic fields were composed of photons. Since magnetic fields are stationary how can they be composed of photons that move at lightspeed?
Should I ever have the slightest thought, of even beginning to speculate, concerning the merest possibility of agreeing with you, in the future: I’ll try to be more concise. Reminds me of an old saying: "I know you think you heard what I said, but- what you understood, wasn't what I meant."
Happy listening!
Hey, I was just going by what you said, which was:
“BUT- given that everything in the universe(including photons), either consists of or has(depending on your favorite theory), an electromagnetic field....”
Acoustic waves are variations in AIR pressure from place to place and over time(pressurization/rarification/frequency). The air is made of atoms/molecules/matter. Where(exactly) did I say(or even hint) that magnetism and electromagnetic fields are the same thing? My premise is that magnetism may have an effect, on anything with an electromagnetic field. fyi: Most EMF meters measure the electromagnetic radiationflux density (DC fields) or the change in an electromagnetic field over time (AC fields), I repeat, "No one should be able to unequivocally state, that magnetism would/could not affect the typical CDP’s operation, in some audible way. No one has all the answers!" Actually, I should have added: or the operation of any component, in an audio chain.
rodman99999 It wasn’t meant to! BUT- given that everything in the universe(including photons), either consists of or has(depending on your favorite theory), an electromagnetic field, none should be able to unequivocally state, that magnetism would/could not affect the typical CDP’s operation, in some audible way. No one has all the answers!
>>>>Well, actually not everything in the universe has an electromagnetic field. Such as acoustic waves. But more to the point, magnetism doesn’t. Magnetism is measured in Gauss. I.e., magnetic flux density. Electromagnetic fields and waves are measured in something else. Volts/m or Power, EIRP, or whatever. One can build a convincing theory for either thing - that magnetizing the CD can’t possibly work or that it could work. This is one of those situations where the ears decide. You are the decider.
It wasn’t meant to. BUT- given that everything in the universe(including photons), either consists of or has(depending on your favorite theory), an electromagnetic field, none should be able to unequivocally state, that magnetism would/could not affect the typical CDP’s operation, in some audible way. No one has all the answers!
Static charge is a separate issue. Which is why ionizers or anti static sprays are often recommended. But static charge is not affected by demagnetizers. So we still have the dodgy problem of magnetism and why demagnetizing the CD improves the sound. This, ladies and germs, is looks like a real and legitimate mystery we have on our hands.
I've tried a multitude of sprays on my CDs including expensive ones like L'Art du Son. I've found the eyeglass cleaner fluid (under 3 bucks for a large spray bottle) sold at Walmart to be just as effective as anything else I've tried. In addition to cleaning the surface with the Walmart stuff, I demagnetize the CD with a Radio Shack video tape eraser. That's it ... for what its worth.
static charge on the disk may cause induction in the electrical section after the optical system and may cause issues with the drive system if heavily ferrous. the drive system also has a motor that can be susceptible to the static charges. My feeling is the disk is rather benign (other then vibrations etc) in the system its what is effected around it that is probably what you hear.
I think the better solution would be to remove the CD reading all together and go solid state drives and store the data on a NAS etc. but many are reluctant to give up their CD players yet.
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.
