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. |
Oops, my retraction was supposed to be of the nonsequitur, "...sound of silence" ;) |
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. :)
|
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. |
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. |
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? |
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? |
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. |
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 |
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. |
Eldartford, what does the WAV databass contain and what is the confidence level in this comparison? What does "zero errors" mean? |
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, 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? |
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. |
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? |
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! |
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. |
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. |
Douglas_schroeder and Tbg...Note my words..." but this kind of comparison is difficult, and highly subjective...". Implied here is that there might have been a change (improvement?) but if so it was not great enough for me to notice vs what I heard an hour ago. In this test you can't go back and listen to the untreated disc again. The test which someone should do (probably someone who sells a disc treatment product) is a bit-for-bit comparison of digital data files from treated and untreated discs. Maybe there's a reason why they don't do this. |
Not in the least. I have said before and maintain now that I have heard the difference in my rig between treated and untreated discs clearly. I simply wanted to thank a man who was willing to actually try it. I cannot explain why he did not hear it. I also am not going to continue debate with someone who has tried and did not hear the change. That would be foolish. I will vigorously debate those who argue only from hunches, but there is no value arguing when someone tried and it failed.
I believe due to hearing abilities, the type of treatment used (I much prefer polishing to cleaning), environment, etc. that some will hear it easily and others will not. I have a nearly acoustically perfect room, so even subtle changes are quite readily heard.
If the changes due to treatment were such that I couldn't be sure I had heard them, I wouldn't bother discussing it.
I also make judgments based upon what others say they can or cannot hear. If someone says they cannot hear what I feel should be easily heard, you can bet I won't trust their opinion.
I have had audiophiles come into my room, and I have conducted listening tests on such things as power cords and disc treatments. They have insisted that there is no change. In the course of time I found out they played in live bands extensively. Uh, huh. They had hearing loss. No way would I trust their judgment in what could be heard. :)
It's one thing to have a variance in opinion between what is "preferred" sound. It's another altogether not to even detect the sound. I'm not judging Eldartford on his test; I wasn't there. But I certainly have not been changed in my conclusions from my listening tests. |
So, Doug, are you changing your opinion? I continue to be perplexed at sincere beliefs that some hear differences and others do not. I am also fascinated that some love one wine while others hate it. Humans are a varied lot.
I remember several years ago sitting between John Curl and an TAS reviewer listening to a demonstration of the Shun Mook speakers. John and I were struck by the improvement gained by a slight change they made in the speakers. The reviewer heard nothing. My only judgment was that I would pay no attention to his reviews thereafter. He was soon gone. |
Eldartford, thank you for conducting a test of the disc treatment. I respect people who actually will try such things. I also will accept your experience and not debate it. Variety of experiences makes for interesting exchanges between audio lovers. |
OK. I did the test.
First of all I connected my CD player directly to one of my Behringer DEQ2496. The 2496 logs the peak signal level over the course of a complete CD. I made the hookup directly so that there was no gain control in the signal path. I played a CD twice, before and after treatment. For the two playings, the peak signal level was identical for both channels...-4.2dB for Left and -4.1 for right. That proves to me that there is no increase of loudness as a result of treatment.
With regard to sonic quality, I heard no difference, but this kind of comparison is difficult, and highly subjective, and everyone is free to believe what they want. I know what I think. |
Mr E- Yeah, There's no doubt that they do work, and very well(hard for me to swallow, given my reactions to some of Amar's past concoctions). Did he learn advertising at MIT too? |
Rodman99999...FYI...Bose pilot's noise-canceling headsets are almost universally preferred by pilots over other noise-canceling headsets which cost less. |
Somehow this was posted before I finished. I was only going to say that the Walker Ultra-Vivid did allow cd players to play both. |
I used Rain-X many years ago on many cds. I have seen no adverse effect on any of them. I have used UltraBit Platinum after discarding George's linty rags. It is not as good, IMHO, as his earlier products. I used his ClearBit as a cleaner until I ran out. For a while I used the Jena Labs cd cleaner, but the Walker Audio Ultra-Vivid is clearly superior. At some point in all of this I also used AudioTop digital, which was quite good but not the equal to Ultra-Vivid.
I have a music server now from Exemplar. I have found that treating cds to rip has no advantage. Sometimes I actually preferred the untreated cd. I fully realize that others might not have my experience.
I have two badly scratched cds that cannot be replaced. One of them I did not have when I was using Rain- |
I know the word Kudos; I didn't know you two have a history. By all means, carry on with the repartee. :) |
Douglas- He and I have picked at one another in good humor for some time now. I'm certain he's old(and intelligent) enough to defend himself, thank you. Credit? Look up "KUDOS" in your Funk and Wagnalls. |
Rodman, know when enough's enough. The man is actually trying it. I give him credit, as he's willing to investigate what he feels is contradictory to his understanding. He doesn't need hecklers. :)
I'm as "up for a good joke" as anyone but I'm serious about the advantages of disc treatment. It won't help the cause if he's angry or feels he's being mocked for trying it.
If the bottle says it's no good for plastics I would not use it. There are too many other good solutions. It's not worth wrecking a CD long term for the change in sound. I recommend products which will effect the result as well as protect the surface; plastic polish as opposed to Rain-X. |
KUDOS Eldartford- You've taken the first step on the road to recovery(even if you don't hear a difference). You DO know flying with your window open is hazardous to your hearing, right? Or do you always wear a Bose headset too? =8^) |
I bought the Rain-X. The package says "do not use on plastics..." I'm sure I have a disc that I don't care about and it will get the treatment. If I try it and it doesn't work am I then authorized to say so?
I know it works on windshields, so my $3.99 will not be wasted. |
Sorry- I forgot: Your right to Freedom of Speech not withstanding. It's hard to let others have the last word though, isn't it? |
Douglas(Or anyone else out there who's mind is not concrete on this subject: Thoroughly mixed up, and permanently set), you may want to read this:- (http://www.ultrabitplatinum.com/How_it_Works.html) Whether you believe this information or not- THE PRODUCT WORKS, PERIOD!! If you never try something, you have no valid opinion on the subject and further discussion is simply pissing up the proverbial rope. |
Eldartford, you are correct; I have never used CD treatments as a repair method. My goal is entirely improved sonics. There seems to be some confusion here about scratch repairs and sonics. Any scratch repair in my usage of polishes is entirely incidental.
I wanted to clarify so that you do not think the challenge/concept of CD treatment stems mostly from repairs. My discussion pertains to the usage of disc treatments solely for change/improvement of the sound. |
Repairing scratches that cause skips is not the same thing as making a perfectly good disc sound better, or louder. Scratch repair is plausible. |
I just tried the stuff on one of those pesky, non-playing, scratched all to hell DVDs from the video rental store Friday nite. It worked just as well as my UltraBit Platinum(the disc played perfectly after treatment). This thread will save me a lot of money in UBP($4/bottle vs $65/bottle). It's in vogue for me as of two days ago. I'll save the UBP for my CDs. |
It looks like the Rain-X treatment came to the fore about the same time as the green marker pen. I don't necessarily subscribe to the views in this article but it is interesting that this was in vogue about 18 years ago . |
I have used car wax on scratched dvd's (netflix) with success...remembering to wipe from center outwards. |
In the 1850s, about the same time that the first perpetual motion clock was attempted, the miasma theory of how cholera was widely believed by all scientists. Cholera, they thought, came from bad air and bad air came from human excrement. They "knew" Dr. Snow's notion that it was passed in water was simply "impossible." Foolish them! |
It used to be that application for a patent had to be accompanied by a model of the invention. Somewhere in Washington DC there is a warehouse with thousands of interesting models. They changed the rule, and now models are not required with one or two specific exceptions. One such exception is a perpetual motion machine. You have to submit a working model of that. There are some things that are just impossible. |
If everyone maintained a commitment to existing theories of what explains observations that dismissed new observations, there would be no further "science". |
Everyone's comments on using Rain-X on car motivated me to use the now 2 year old Rain-X that I tried on my car windows.
I still maintain that a commitment to an existing theory of what explains observations that dismisses new observations is fundamentally unscientific. |
I miss Sean's posts around here. |
Dgarretson...There is a line somewhere between enthusiasm and madness. You and I may draw that line differently. I would humbly suggest that testing the limit of a turbo-charged BMW motorcycle is over the top, and it appears that you have come to that view also.
But, I will do your RainX thing, and report my observations. |
Eldartfort, at a younger age I did indeed test the limit of a turbo-charged BMW motorcycle at max speed. Rain-X on a CD is safer & more suited to age and temperment today. Closer to the analogy of hifi, I have no doubt that the limbic system of a Road & Track and Motorcylist enthusiast is wired to make a purchase decision based in part on the tested maximum speed of a sports vehicle-- though the buyer will never use the vehicle at close to that maximum speed. There are bicylists who acquire Campagnolo's latest fibre gruppo for the tangible or intangible advantage of shaving several grams or of obtaining minute marginal improvements in aerodynamics at speed. Associations with performance & even the feint prospect of perfectionism is partly what drives audiophiles toward purchase of statement systems and little tweaks, apart from any interest in music or the real world. The obverse is someone like Shadorne defending his position by falling back on a tin ear or the muddiness of his Target system. Shadorne has obviously never owned a nice Ferrari Daytona or Lambo Miura with six Weber DCOE carbs: runs perfectly when tuned but not at all at other times. A highly transparent audio system can be similarly revealing.
You say you would pay $2.99 for a bottle of Rain-X because it could be used as intended on the car windshield in the event it fails to improve CDs. (1) In the absence of personal experience, why are you prepared to accept the claim that Rain-X is any more effective on a car than on a CD? (2) Why set a limit of $2.99 for a bottle of Rain-X? Why not $3.99 or $9.99, or any price up to full cost of a new transport that makes a difference equal to the improvement of Rain-X? (3) If the windshield wiper on your Mercedes were to break, would you spend $500 to repair the wipers, or $499.99 for a bottle of Rain-X? |
Rodman99999...As a Bose user you have to have a thick skin!! But I was surprised to find in the responses to my comments that quite a few audiophiles have Bose 901s in their past, and more than one thought they sounded good under the right circumstances. |
Eldartford- Don't you think I know all that? Couldn't resist the chain-yank though! If we can't have a little fun in here: What's the point? =8^) |
Dgarretson...It is a known fact that if you wash and wax your light airplane you will typically gain 1 or 2 mph. But an airplane is very sensitive to aerodynamics. Squashed bugs on the wing leading edge break up the laminar airflow, and that increases drag.
I thought that someone might suggest what you did, and that's why I said "dashboard". But even on the windshield, do you really think it would have any measurable effect? Would you take the trouble to design and execute an experiment? |
Douglas_schroeder...FYI...I was urged by Sean, of fond memory, to try something other than zip cord for speaker wire. He loaned me some audiophile-approved wires to try out and I did a listening test. With two speakers side by side, one wired with zip cord and the other with the speaker wire, I did seem to hear a difference, and thought it was probably a very slight improvement. As a result I bought some Goertz wires.
On the other hand, my evaluation of a Cryo-treated AC outlet produced the opposite conclusion.
My mind is indeed "open". How many audiophiles would consider using Bose 901 speakers!!! |
