Anyone have experience with the Nanotec Nespa?

The obvious question now, to me, is: has anyone compared an RC CDR to an original that has been Nespa'd? Of course using two originals (in my experience, one would have to make sure the two sound the same as well first - i.e. I've found they don't all necessarily sound the same!)would be the most fair comparison: original Nespa'd (without fluids) vs. fully RC treated CDR. Then, I suppose, the next step might be comparing a fluid treated Nespa original with a Nespa original that had not been treated with fluid. And comparing the fluid treated Nespa with the CDR. All in the name of better sound with the least amount of hassle, of course. And, of "double course", in the spirit of science, but while having fun doing it.

John (Jfz), you volunteering to be the 'test subject'? Just kidding :)

PureMusic:

I've only tried the Nespa on the CD-R AFTER burning it. Per Steve Klein, the distributor of the Nespa, I also Nespa the original prior to burning. I can't verify that this makes any significant difference, but judging from what it does to the CD-R, I'd venture that it improves the original CD as well--which would, in theory, improve the burning process, because the burner would have an easier time reading the original. Whew, now I'm totally confused. What was I saying? :)

Last Sat. we treated a CD ( previously treated with RealDisc and ClearBit on the rim) with the Nespa. We then burned RCCD CD-R. Compared to a pre-Nespa version, the Nespa version was improved.

RCCD and Nespa work well together.

Steve

The question remains: how much improvement does EACH provide? (Nespa vs RC). I realize each can improve the other, but what if a person can only afford one. Has anyone done a direct comparison: just Nespa vs just RC?