Auric Illuminator, Optrix, others


Recently bought duplicate CDs to try some CD enhancers which have been getting some outragious reviews of significant improvement in sound by improving data read off CD surface. After carefull comparison I must say I prefer untreated CD. The sound is slightly altered with treatments, usually sounding "smoother" however this was accomplished by obscuring fine musical detail, especially treble detail. I want more detail and nuance, not less. I do not have $20,000 plus systems most reviewers have, but my $7,000 system based on Musical Fidelity X-Ray is fully capable of detailed presention. Also magazines perpetuate the notion that there are many CD tweaks (CD mats, blackout pens, surface sprays etc) that you must have to improve sound.....has anyone else done careful comparison with duplicate CDs to study effects of various treatments?
128x128megasam
i use compact disc magic.it's not really an enhancer,but true no residue cleaner.i find after cleaning more detail,better ambient background,truer bass definition-never loose information- always seem to hear more of every frequency.only 16.00 a bottle-cable company.
Great info guys, I bet Garfish would have got it had it been acronymned correctly PRaT.
Some more detailed info about my comparisons. Using duplicate Cds, when testing Optrix I heard no significant difference in sound when compared to untreated CD, so if you use Optrix you will have clean CD but I hear no real difference. Auric Illuminator did slightly change the sound making it "smoother" more laid back. I won't say it obscured fine details, but it rounded the sharp edges a bit, making a more relaxed sound but less pointed dynamic contrasts. I will use it on very bright recordings like the remastered David Bowie "Ziggy Stardust" as the smoothing effect makes this CD more enjoyable. But most of my Cds will get no treatment as I want to preserve full dynamic contrast and detailing. Neither product changed 3D soundstaging to any noticable degree.