Opitrix vs. Walker Audio Vivid?

I have only tried Optrix.It improved the resolution of every CD I have no matter how good or bad they sounded without it.The sound was also more transparent.The result was obvious for every member of my family whether I put the CDs on a boombox or CEC 5100Z player.What's more, I first treated some of my CDs with it over 2 years ago, and there is no deterioration in sound or CDs' surfaces,as far as I can tell.I don't know about you but I have some CDs that are very difficult to find and cost a lot,so the safety of these products is important to me.I will try Walker some day but first on DVDs and wait for a while.

Mshan,

Walker Vivid improves resolution, provides deeper bass, and is aptly name, as the sound is very vivid (dynamic) afer treatment. I find it simpler to use than Auric Illuminator (fewer steps) and provides a much easier to discern improvement over Auric. I thought the Auric was a worthwhile improvement, but Walker Vivid beats it in sound and application.

Vivid is not as thick as Microsmooth and I have not noticed any negative effect on the discs it has been applied to. I have no concerns about using Vivid.

I've tried both the Optrix and Mapleshade's Mikro Smooth. Mikro Smooth leaves dull scratches on my CD's no matter how meticulously it's applied. Optrix sometimes leaves a visable residue on my CD's. Both products are being returned. The visable results of both products were so disturbing that I really didn't spend much time auditioning the sound. I just can't imagine that a lightly scratched CD with visable residue is a good thing.

Hi Fellow Audiophiles...Iam waiting for my Walker vivid..in few days i will put it to the test and will post my review soon..Iam a very hard core audiophile and my opinion will carry alot of weight and substance.Thanks,Hudson.

I'd just like to add, Vivid continues to impress. The effect on some titles is truly astounding.