Hi all,
This Rain-X treatment thread/ tip is such an interesting subject and I will give it a try sometime this weekend and will post the result.
The 2 minutes and 10 seconds "proceedure" should be simple but for this little A/B test like this may take me probabpy half a day just to prep. to get an accurate result. Like let the system warm-up, pick out then listen to a track over and over before putting the treated disk in, etc.
However, with all due respect, what can we do to keep this thread interesting and not going off course? Either ones BELIEVE it or NOT, we, as readers, already got your point; we already heard and seen enough. This thread is already long, there's no more need to know who performs better in bed or who's wife has a bigger boobs.... let's keep it clean and respect others' opinion(s). Show us some actual hands-on results. |
Eldartford, Yes, I did see your comment on the test being difficult and subjective; I agree in essence. I was not attacking you in my last post, merely stating real possibilities when people conduct these tests. There will be some with hearing issues, some with room issues, some who try cleaners versus polish, etc. These all influence the outcome.
Nasaman, frankly, this has been quite the civil conversation once we got past the initial jousting. :) So far, Eldartford is the only skeptic to actually conduct a test, and I respect his efforts to look into it.
There really should be no need to listen to the track over and over. Find music you like and know well; then select the track or two you want to work with. Polish the disc. Then re-listen. The difference should be so obvious that previous listening saturation should not be needed.
I found an old bottle of Rain-X in my garage! Ha! Now I can find a disc or two and see how efficacious the Rain-x treatment is. It would not surprise me if it comes nowhere near to the improvement of using a polish. It will be interesting to check that. |
I will likely use Rain-X first on discs and compare to the untreated disc. Then, I will polish the disc and see if there is further improvement. I found that any type of cleaner had much less effect on the sound post-treatment than polish. Even cleaned CDs made a remarkable improvement after being polished. That's why I ultimiately skipped cleaning and went straight to polishing.
If a Rain-X treated disc still shows large improvement after polishing, then I will skip use of Rain-X, as it would only be comparable to cleaning.
I may run down to the used CD place today, find some new music and have a stack of discs to work with. You know, in the name of science, discovery and all that stuff! ;) Also a convenient excuse to get new music! |
Nasaman, as Douglas says, in my opinion this has been most civilized as compared to what appears on Prop Head on AudioAsylum. I am a social scientists and find it quite curious that many who profess to value science, refuse to listen, Eldartford obviously excluded, and that many who listen are dismissive of worrying about explaining what they hear.
Douglas introduces another concern, namely hearing loss, but I think also that people listen for different things. One of these is to enjoy the musical reproduction that they have without the quest for greater realism. My wife characterizes my listening room as a laboratory. I cannot really disagree. I have achieved greater realism with all of my tweaking with my system, such as isolating all cables from the floor with a single ceramic isolator, but this has meant many false steps and has taken time from listening to music. But when I do listen, I enjoy the thrill of more realism. What accounts for individual differences in this regard?
Finally, why do some bother posting here and elsewhere? It is quite difficult to characterize in words what we hear. Why not just enjoy and tell no one? Is it ego? |
Agreed this is a very civil discussion.
By the way, my idea for a bit-by-bit comparison of digital files was not to suggest that such a test would have anything to do with sonic quality, which is a subjective thing. I look on such a test as a pre-requisite for there being a sonic improvement. I say, if the bits are identical, so is the sound. If they are different, then we go listen some more. |
Eldartford, if you copy two differently treated discs to a hard drive using WAV and both copies show no errors and the same level of confidence from the WAV database, are the copies bit for bit accurate? |
Tbg...Yes, but all you would prove is that each disc was copied without error, but they could be different discs.
What is needed is software that will compare two files that have been read into the computer as you suggest, one file before disc treatment and one after.
This would be a lot of number crunching! However, just the first minute of music would comprise 5.28 million bits, and the handwriting should be on the wall by that point. |
Eldartford, what does the WAV databass contain and what is the confidence level in this comparison? What does "zero errors" mean? |
I am a social scientists and find it quite curious that many who profess to value science, refuse to listen ...science does not value ambiguous individual human subjective interpretation/opinions. Either... Perform a controlled double blind test with a large population and with a meaningful result with statistical confidence. or... Provide a plausable scientific explanation for your miraculous claims. or... measure a difference with an instrument and allow others to repeat and verify your experimental results. Any of the above would be valued by a scientist. Someone who values science would not waste time looking at just any old wacky idea. There has to be some logic....some reasoning...some proof...some plausability. |
Roger Ohlhausen's 1971 patent states that the active ingredients include between 2.5 and 30% mineral acids. Polysiloxane is the main ingredient, the acid helps with adhesion to glass.
Will these acids affect the plastic of the CD?
Ken |
Shadorne, I think what you have said evidences your not being a scientist. If you are, you have little experience in the development of early ventures into research in an area. Also, you seem woefully unaware of validity issues in operationalizing concepts and variables. I strongly suggest you read the Ghost Map about the cholera outbreak in London. You will see where a hidebound, unfounded commitment to an explanation or theory can dampen our understanding of nature. |
Tbg,
Ok so you are on the science high horse.
Well you are absolutely right on. I plead guilty as charged to willfully dampening our understanding of the nature of Rain X and CD treatment.
What about you? Are you going to do something about it? Why not get some grad students to perform a Double Blind study and write an AES paper? Why hasn't AES published something already? Or is this like paranormal stuff...it doesn't work under rigorous test conditions? |
Tbg...."Zero errors" means exactly that. The copied digital file is an exact duplicate of the original.
Science is sometimes proven wrong when it extends into new areas. Not often, but frequently enough to provide ammunition for debates like this. There is no reason to abandon science in areas that are well understood. You can't argue against Ohm's law, for example.
You might enjoy a book I read once "The Big Bang Never Happened". As you know the Big Bang cosmological theory is almost universally accepted, but the alternative, continuous creation is convincingly set forth in this book. The first chapter, which you would most enjoy, describes all the "firmly established" scientific theories that have proven wrong. Of course, creation of the universe is an example of an area where you might expect science to be on shaky ground. But do you really think it possible that the earth is supported by four elephants standing on the back of a tortoise? |
Eldartford, I read and enjoyed it. I love examples of science getting committed to an idea and resisting change until the data overwhelm it. It is slow but that is the strength of good science.
Ohms law is very useful, but all science is based on tentatively accepted hypotheses and theories that put them together with explanations.
I find myself in an unusual position in this thread as I really found Rain-X to have little benefit. I do know, however, that there are benefits to be had demagnetizing a cd. I guess it is merely removing static electricity, but even that seems a poor explanation for why this happens.
If "zero errors" mean that the copy exactly reflects the original, I have indeed seen two zero error copies one done without the Millennium cd mat and one with sound quite different. I don't find this true relative to cleaned or treated discs. |
OMG, THIS RAIN-X TREATMENT WORKS. THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE.
I just tried and it works. Those that had doubt but with an open minded, please give it a try.
Well, right from the beginning of this, and any, A/B test, I knew it'd be a long night for me; I'm an skeptical guy. Anyways,I'm not going to post how I did it in details because it's going to be long and probably boring to readers. In short version, I:
1/ Played 2 movies and 1 music concert to insure system is all warmed up.
2/ Do trick and train my brain. It's for psychology purpose.
3/ Applied about 10 to 15 drops of Rain-X disc then gently buffed it off from center outward; not in circular motion. Since I have 2 identical and ORIGINAL CD's from Enya. I used 1 for the treatment and used one untreated for reference.
First, I noticed that in mid high, about 1K -5Khz was a little distored for the TREATED disc. It sounded artificial but after about 30 seconds, that seemed to disappear. Biggest improve was the contrast. I could actually hear more "silent". Intruments were slightly in clearer picture. Some purcusions instrument were more easily identified. Another word, I got sucked in the music more than the UNTREATED one. Dynamic was a bit improved, meaning it was slightly louder.
On the Untreated disc, music was seem to stick and run over lap each other. Like a little hazed or glass put in front between me and the stage.It was almost like to compare a Cassette tape to a CD. Well, not to be exact but it was a good happy ending. My hat is now off for those been hanging on this forum trying to convince others.
I'm really glad I did this. I have lots of red book CDs so it's not too difficult to guess what I'm about to do with them now..... Happy listening. |
Nasaman, This is an interesting post you have written. I applaud you for trying the treatment, but I would encourage you to try other substances (not inhaling or injecting!) as well, as I found that different treatments yield different degrees of the result you speak of.
Two things you said stand out in my mind:
"Dynamic was a bit improved, meaning it was slightly louder." I have been saying that the perception is that the treated disc will sound louder. I was challenged by Eldartford on that, as though I was suggesting there would be an actual increase. I have never suggested that the level actually changes, however, those who hear the difference seem to agree that it does perceptually sound louder. Could this be due to the background noise being diminished - the sense of silence you seem to notice? (I was going to say "sense of silence you hear" which would have been ludicrous, and which critics would have had a field day with! :) )
I enjoyed your thought, "It was almost like to compare a Cassette tape to a CD," as it reminded me of the many years I recorded from CD onto tape. I still have my lovely Nakamichi tape deck sitting in my office. Haven't turned it on in years. I could get the playback on the tape extremely close to disc, but always lacking that last little bit of vibrancy, of immediacy which was clear with CD playback. Yes, this is a very similar difference between the two. The treated disc sounds a bit more snappy, vibrant, clean.
It really is remarkable how something so simple as treatment has that much of an effect on the sound. You will find yourself rushing to treat many of your favorite discs to hear them again.
Finally, I did not sense any diminishment or distortion of the treble on treated discs. All the parts of the frequency spectrum and all the music is consistently cleaner and clearer. It is possible your ears were adjusting to the difference in presentation; as you said, it "went away" in about 30 seconds. My guess is that you will come to love the super-clear/clean treble from treated discs. It is one of the bonuses I have received from the effort of treating them. :)
I am guessing that those with hearing loss will be among those who cannot discern the difference between a treated and untreated disc. There is to my ear quite a noticeable distinction, but I have excellent hearing and am listening on an extremely high end rig. These two together certainly can make the difference between hearing it easily and not. Let me be clear that I am not attacking anyone's rig, not diminishing anyone's abilities, simply stating the facts - there will be people and conditions which will not as easily reveal the difference in sound. Under the correct conditions it should be quite obvious. No massive "scientific" experiments needed. If one has to wonder if they're hearing a change, then it's not worth the time and effort; however, that does not necessarily mean there is no change. I would not waste my time on treating discs if I had to spend two seconds wondering about if there was a significant change in sound. I am far too practical and logical to waste my energy on things which are not clearly beneficial. No one argues about the efficacy of cleaning albums. In my experience this is every bit as critical, every bit as beneficial to the Redbook user with the proper conditions to hear it. :)
|
Oops, my retraction was supposed to be of the nonsequitur, "...sound of silence" ;) |
This evening I finally spent some time with Rain-X, treating Lee Konitz's fine new "Deep Lee" and Dave Douglas's "Strange Liberation." The Douglas album had previously been treated with CD Stop Light edge treatment. In addition to sounding clearer & cleaner & exhibiting more transient snap, the Rain-X treated CDs have more bass sock and sound smoother and suppler. Images seem rounder and soundstage larger. I think the sense of increased loudness is due to larger images and soundstage, rather than to an increase in volume level.
The improvements are discernable and worthwhile, but I would not say that they're dramatic. A very worthwhile experiment. |
