Rain-X as CD Enhancement Treatment

My wife realized the incurable nature of my audiophilia years ago. She was greatly relieved when I determined to build my own room; it meant she would be free from the incessant tinkering with the system.

You should try the polishing treatment, and I'll try the marker/edge treatment. We can compare notes here. That'll drive Shadorne crazy! ;)

For starters, I have heard that one is to use a green marker. Did you stick with green. How about blue? Black? I suspect yellow highlighter would not work as well? Any particular brand of marker you prefer? ;)

When dealing with $10k components and high end speakers, I would assert that one had better hear such influcences as a power cable change, disc treatment, etc. or else the designation "audiophile component" is questionable. If these higher end pieces can do no better than Target mini systems at revealing nuances or treatments, then there's no point in buying them. Then you may as well head to the local electronic store's going-bankrupt sale. Far be it from problematic; if the serious audio gear can parse the bits and do it better with a treated CD, then that's a doggone highly calibrated device! Now, if the sound was worse after disc treatment, then I'd say the laser assembly either had extremely fine tuned parameters in which to operate, or it was not so well built.

But the argument of making improved performance via altered media an issue in terms of quality of the player/DAC? I don't see the logic in that, especially when it can be done with the DAC1. When a badly scratched disc is inserted into a player and it doesn't work properly, we don't say the player is defective or has a problem. However, when an "enhanced" disc is inserted and the player peforms better, we say it has a problem? Go figure. :)

Thankfully, the fine rigs I have used all revealed these things, and consistently so. I have not run into an audiophile cdp which could not be improved upon through disc treatment. The higher end the rig, the more such influences are heard.

I agree that the best components most clearly reveal the effect of tweaks. The clearer the window, the more visible the remaining smudge. I think this phenomenon is what accounts for the hyperbole of magazine reviewers, who when describing near-SOTA equipment appear to be making a big deals about splitting hairs. My view is that the hobby is all about closing the small gap between 9/10s and 10/10s, which separates a great system from realism. You never get there, but according to Zeno's paradox, through small steps you can close the gap by halves, and feel at each step like you've made a 50% improvement.

The question for anybody with budget constraints becomes what is the most cost-effective step at the margin. We all have different ways of looking at this. As a maker of DIY cables, I've always found that a dollar committed to improving electronics is preferable to that dollar spent on ANY commercial cable. Unfortunately, I have come to this conclusion after accumulating a drawer full of Synergistics, Audioquest, Tara, Goertz, & MIT cables. Yet there are those who on general principles will not spend one Yankee dollar to test the value proposition of a Sharpie.

I'll check out the Rainex. As my CD Stop Light is gone, I need to find another pen to revisit this experiment. The green Sharpie may be good. Geoff Kait likes a purple pen-- and in spite of pebbles & teleportation he's not always wrong.

When dealing with $10k components and high end speakers, I would assert that one had better hear such influcences as a power cable change, disc treatment, etc. or else the designation "audiophile component" is questionable.

The anecdotal evidence for this seems irrefutable. To top it off, with break-in lasting sometimes 1000 hours or more - not atypical in an audiophile designated component - it seems quite plausible that most designated "audiophile components" will never sound the same twice, ever. I am happy with my "target" quality gear - it works for my tin ears. Thankfully, I get the same old crappy response every time.

Guys, I haven't been following this thread, but I must say it is the most civil discussion on this I have ever read.

I should say that I have spent a career testing methods and statistics as well as doing the best science I could given the difficulties of studying humans. I am a political science professor. Mine is very much a young and developing science and recently many political scientists have embraced the deductive ideas so prevalent in economics. For me to assume human rationality is a bridge too far. Rather I pursue an inductive science based on observations and trying to explain why there are differences. Such a science develops with many studies.

This predisposes me in audio to want to hear components, speakers, wires, etc. And to try to understand why one sounds better. My interest in music is to want the best sound I can get, but I also want to understand why one sounds better. Nevertheless, if something sounds better I will try to afford it.

I had undergraduate education in engineering as well as in the sciences. In my opinion engineering is about applying the findings of science to practical use. Its principles do not define what science is. In application to the question of cleaning cds, the engineer might well stick with the fundamental precepts. Some tweaks violate some of these precepts, but not necessarily natures laws or science. Also, of course, some tweaks may be scams, but violating precepts does necessarily means they are scams. Observations might well lead to better precepts.

I would give an example of quartz disks. I have tried many different quartz products or tweaks. In some places they have a very great benefit. In others no effect, and yet in others may ruin the sound. I hate to have to use these empirically, namely to always have to use trial and error. For someone to tell me that they could have no impact is grossly unscientific to me as it fails to account for the variability of the findings. Do I wish someone could "predict" where there would be benefits would be great.

Long ago, I tried Rain-X. I still have the bottle in my listening room. I did find some benefit, but very little. I found that use on my windshields did allow some avoidance of using my windshield wipers as water sheeted of more. Why this would have an effect on cds, I cannot understand. I can see how eyeglass cleaners would have more effect. Optrix in my opinion has a much greater effect than Rain-X. I do not use either now.

Shadorne, while I fully agree that equipment breakin takes a long time, I don't understand why you would say a piece of equipment never sounds the same twice. I also don't understand why you would say "target" quality gear always sounds the same. There are explanations for why gear breaks in and apart from drivers, most often this is several months or less. If you turn equipment off, it may take some time to get back to where it was, but once there it will change little.

Going into this experiment I will admit to being biased in favor of Rain-X. Some years ago Andy Rooney of 60 Minutes attempted to debunk this fine product as an example of consumer hucksterism. He scoffed at it, noting with some pride the superiority of the good ole fashioned American-made windshield wiper. He then made a half-hearted palsied attempt to rub Rain-X into an automobile windshield before watching it fail to work. Now I have used this product successfully for many years, and know that for it to work as designed, one must carefully follow directions and apply generously, and reapply again after drying. Generally speaking, one may take any manufacturer's claim to apply its product twice as an exploitative attempt to increase user consumption, but in the case of Rain-X, this is not a valid criticism. Rain-X works and sheds rain better than the best windshield wipers at speeds above 30 mph. Shadorne, please give Rain-X a chance, remembering always to follow the directions.