What are you all doing to modify your cds?

Here's something that you might find interesting. While i do not agree with all of the contents or opinions expressed in this [url=http://www.digital-recordings.com/cdcheck/sensnd02.html]article about cd tweaks and error correction[/url], the technical aspects of any "tweak" that can be measured and show negative effects on data retrieval should be avoided. At least, that is my opinion.

After all, "error correction" causes the player to re-read the data time and time again until it can be read or for the player to "best interpret" the damaged data that it was able to pull from the disc. Either of them would be steps backward as lifting the data off the disc with as little corruption as possible is "probably" what most of us are after. Then again, it is possible that "error correction" results in a sonic presentation that some may find more pleasing on a personal basis. As such, the information presented boils down to personal interpretation and is of a subjective nature.

As far as "accuracy" goes, some "tweaks" ( performance enhancing devices ) are not "tweaks" so much as they are "corruptors" of the signal. I guess that one might like a "corrupted signal" just as one might prefer a specific "sonic flavour". Sean
>

For some reason, Audiogon has things set-up so that one can't add or correct a link after the original post has been submitted. Here's the above address in a clickable link. Sorry 'bout dat... Sean
>

http://www.digital-recordings.com/cdcheck/sensnd02.html

Buscis2: As far as the point / counterpoint goes, the article the i linked to provided repeatedly verifiable information from an unbiased source i.e. test equipment. The article that you referenced is pure speculation based on subjective opinions of humans. Humans that are susceptible to pre-conceived ideas. Not exactly an "apples vs apples" type of debate.

Having said that, i DO believe that there are benefits to some specific "CD tweaks". I would consider SOME of these tweaks to offer both sonic and technical / measurable advantages. That's why i said that i did not agree with everything that was contained in that article.

To put things in black and white, i don't believe that anything that makes it harder to retrieve data from the recorded source is beneficial to high fidelity reproduction in any form. As such, i avoid using any type of "device" or "tweak" that does nothing but corrupt the signal that the system is trying to reproduce. In my eyes, increasing the number of errors / corrupting data to the point of reduced readability could never be considered a "positive". Given that the CD mats tested in this article and "CD Rings" & "markering" have all shown to produce verifiable and repeatable negative aspects into data retrieval, i consider them to be a "plague" to digital reproduction.

Having said that, i don't believe that something that is a negative on its' own can help the situation at all, even when combined with something that may be a positive. This is not "chemistry" and we aren't seeing "magic" take place. As such, adding a negative to a positive just gives you less of a positive. In some cases, the negative may actually outweigh the positive and the drawbacks of one tweak may negate the benefits of another.

As such, we'll have to disagree about certain CD tweaks. I don't have a problem with this since i'm listening to my CD's in my system and your listening to your CD's in your system and we will probably continue to do so. For those that aren't familiar with our previous conversations or haven't had time to check out the thread that you referenced, there are several factors of "CD tweaking" that we do agree on. As such, i think that this is something that most people have to check out for themselves and see what they think. It's quite possible that "the truth" lies somewhere between our two points of view. Then again, it's also positive that we are both off our rockers and we are chasing our tails. Only time will tell : ) Sean
>

4yanx: Proof is in the eye and mind of the beer-holder.

I look at it like this:

Audio reproduction is a blend of human perceptions and science. Through science, we can break down and assess what we perceive as humans. When science can fully explain ( never happen ) what we perceive, we will have attained "audio nirvana".

Until that point in time, i am of the belief that anything that subtracts, distorts or makes it harder to recover recorded data is a "bad" thing. If data corruption should occur, the reproduction devices ( digital in this case ) are giving me their interpretation ( through error correction ) of what they think i should hear rather than what the performer / engineers encoded onto the disk.

Since science can verify that this "interpretation of data" ( error correction ) is taking place, isn't it more logical to want to avoid this process at all costs ? Wouldn't this lead one to believe that, due to having the shortest path with the least amount of outside influences, we are obtaining the closest resemblance of what was put on the disc ?

Obviously, we have to take into account the meager performance of our entire system. My question is, why would anyone want to introduce a device that knowingly corrupts the data to a point of requiring greater effort to reproduce and / or "fake it" and then expect better results ?

In effect, error correction means that you are getting information second-hand. Why would you want to do this when you can go directly to the source and not have to worry about mis-interpretation and / or bits and pieces of information being left out ?

Audible or not, error correction should only be viewed as further interference of the signal with the potential for corruption of the data being recovered. It only seems logical to want to avoid the error correcton mechanism itself and any other devices / treatments that would cause the error correction mechanism to come into play. Kind of like treating the cancer and then avoiding anything that might cause it to come back. Sean
>

4yanx: My thoughts on the article that i referenced are that they demonstrate that using some type of a "CD mat" is a negative, which the "DED" device demonstrated due to the need for added error correction. That is all that i wanted to show, nothing more. I could have just referenced that part of the article, but thought it would be better if everyone could read the entire article for themselves and form their own opinions.

Many of my other comments are based on the results obtained from personal testing that i've done. Based on these experiments, i know that some disc "treatments" ( creams, polishes, sprays, etc... ) can increase readability and aid in data retrieval. I also know that "truing" a CD by beveling or trimming the edge also increases readability and aids in data retrieval. Both of these effects can be demonstrated and measured electrically. Discs that were not readable prior to either of these treatments are now able to be fully read or at least read to a much greater extent.

As far as markering the edges of CD's, we've been through that before. I've found nothing but poorer performance with a reduction in disc readability on discs that were markered. As such, using a marker by itself will typically increase the amount of error correction required and reduce the speed that the disc can be read at, taking the system a step further into "signal corruption". Using a markered disc with a CD mat is kind of a double whammy, taking you two steps backward with even more error correction required and possibly making marginal ( heavily scratched ) discs unreadable on some machines. Why use either method when they have both been shown to reduce readability and add the potential for further data / signal corruption ?

My only guess is that audio is no different than any other aspect of life. That is, "folklore" is passed on from person to person, with some folks acting on that information, even if it is known to be false. As such, i was trying to "dispell" some things that may have been recommended here, but obviously, it is up to the individual to do and believe as they like. I guess we'll just sum it up by saying "different strokes for different folks". I'll do my thing and they can do theirs : ) Sean
>

Buscis: As i've said before, people should use and do what they think sounds best and gives them the most listening pleasure. I still think that.

As far as markering, etc... sounding "better", i can't agree with that let alone test it out. When i have tried to test it out using discs of marginal playability, what was a "questionable" disc is now an unplayable disc. Obviously, the non-markered disc that plays with some distortion sounds a LOT better than the disc that has been markered and completely drops out or won't play at all. Given that the quality of playback is very definitely reduced on a "scrap" disc, why would i want to "sacrifice" a disc that i value and plays fine ?

Other than that, i'll shut up and you folks can discuss what you think works best. As mentioned, i was simply trying to provide an alternative point of view that offered a scientific evaluation of various tweaks along with my personal "hands on" experience. I'm sorry if what i had to say doesn't agree with what some of you like / believe, but if we all agreed on everything, we would never learn anything from these discussions. Sean
>