Rain-X as CD Enhancement Treatment

I suspect strongly that "bits ain't bits."

That is where we differ in belief. After many years of "brainwashing" in computer science, time series analysis, physics, maths etc. - a lot of it in graduate school courses in signal processing. I have complete faith in digital. I trust it.

Although many implementations of digital to analog conversions do have problems and quality is variable - digital data is tremendously robust and as perfect as we want or design it to be. So a data bit can be preserved very accurately even if an individual "pit" on a CD may be a rather unreliable thing. It is miraculously black and white. You can copy digital stuff perfectly thousands of times. This is NOT becuase the analog storage devices are so good. In fact analog storage devices are rather inaccurate with an average hardrive/CD/DVD having many faults. The key is in the mathematics and data redundant overhead...digital allows us stick data through large polynomials etc. and generate a whole bunch of redundant data which is all related to the raw data. Think of a 3 x 3 matrix filled with numbers where you are also given the sum for each row and column (extra redundant data). You can lose information in the square or in the redundnat data and still reconstruct the entire square perfectly because you know that it is encoded with the relationship that the rows and columns add up to the extra redundant numbers stored along with the raw data.

All this information is written onto the analog media - the data AND the extra redundant information. The redundant information allows the software to mathematically reconstruct the data perfectly DESPITE plenty of imperfections in the media. The less perfect the media - the more redundant data you need in order to maintain perfect precision.

I understand why people are skeptical - that mathematics has such power to add incredible precision to our imprecise world is one of the technological marvels of this century. Everything relies on this - including your cellphone and your bank statements and not to mention everything you read on these forums.

Philosphically it presents a real challenge to our thinking. Digital is a very similar challenge akin to those who had to face the evidence that the earth was not actually flat. Everything we see day in and day out in our lives tells us the Earth is flat - it looks that way from our perspective! It is even diffiult today for us to conceptualize that people on the other side of this large ball do NOT fall off. All this goes completely against ALL our daily experiences and observations about what we see around us. Digital is the same. The incredible precision that comes through mathematics defies everything we know and observe about the ordinary world around us. Nothing we see or touch is ever as precise as the mathematical constructs used...even the CD itself is woefully imprecise as is anything we can manufacture...but it is the theoretical mathematical constructs that we use to store bits on a CD that makes the "DATA" it holds extremely precise.

Shadorne, yes, but how to you account for the differences in sound that I described? Please don't say we only think we heard them. The room at the RMAF was full of skeptics who only tolerated John Tucker doing this on his system. All muttered disbelief when they heard the difference and only John said he had to get one of those puppies. Several others, however, asked me in the hall where they might buy one.

I'm curious how far into the digital domain Shadorne extends his viewpoint that bits are bits. I too can think of no explanation for why CD media tweaks-- or for that matter tweaks to the optical section of any transport-- should impact sound. And yet I have heard it, and moreover the industry has produced continuous improvement in the manufacture of transport optics & mechanicals up to the current estimable TEAC VRDS-NEO.

Moreover, I have two transports that demonstrate conclusively that "bit ain't just bits." One is a Sony SCD-1, in which the digital section has been modified with improvements to power and passive components in the digital signal path; the other is a stock 777ES (which in stock form has a digital section identical to a stock SCD-1.) I can listen to just the transport sections of both units through identical PDIF cable and identical external Theta Gen 5a DAC, and hear a night and day difference. Go figure.

I'll add that when I modded that Sony, I started with changes to power into the optics, motor, and servo, and worked my way through the various digital circuits, dealing with replacement of the master clock last. I wanted to be able to distinguish between collective changes made in the digital domain and a clock upgrade. Taken together, changes in the digital section other than the clock, surpassed the replacement clock in significance. Go figure.

Shadorne, yes, but how to you account for the differences in sound that I described? Please don't say we only think we heard them.

If what you heard is similar to what is decribed on DAGOGO by Norm Luttbeg then it sounds like it was reduced jitter. This can be explained if you think about a CD rotating and vibrating or the "burned layer" (usually a dye) being uneven from the burner (vibrating disc as it is burnt). The laser pick up will need to make contiunous adjustments in order to remain in focus - since the adjustments are likely repeated upon each revolution of the disc then you create a sinusoidal adjustment to the laser.

If the CDP has poor isolation between the laser ciruitry and the DAC then you can create jitter. Normally jitter is most audible when it is NOT RANDOM - i.e when it is periodical. You get sidebands not unlike IMD distortion rather than white noise thay you might get from completely random jitter.

The above would be a possible hypothetical "complex" explanation. In both cases (mat or no mat) the CD is bit perfect but the equipment is underperforming due to additional complexities in reading an uneven disc.

However, I would be cautious about jumping to conclusions, testing like this is a minefield. The above is just one of many possible answers. For example, another explantion could simply be the setting of the volume - playing the treated CD a mere 1 db SPL louder would probably be just enough for everyone to hear an improvement without anyone noticing the volume was slightly different.

Anyway, the fact that Exact copy proved that the two discs were identical (if we accept that) then we are led to suspect either the equipment playback capability or test conditions as suspect. If I was sure it was the gear and had completely eliminated everything else then I'd get rid of the CDP and find one more reliable that does not need a band aid "mat" to work properly.