What are you all doing to modify your cds?

Hi again Sean, if you really think about it, what fun would it be if we were not off our rockers. In terms of these CD tweaks, I have no explanation whatsoever why they work. In theory, they really should make no difference. But they do. And, I'll put my ears up against any piece of test equipment any day of the week, for the simple reason, that is ultimately the criteria I use.

I also would have to question whether you can actually hear error correction. If I did hear it, I doubt I would actually recognize it. But, then again, there are some things I will probably never understand.

I mean, why did Kamikaze pilots wear crash helmets?

4yanx, just for clarification, I don't have any fingerprints on my CDs.

I always hold them by the EDGES when wiping them against my pant leg.

4yanx: Proof is in the eye and mind of the beer-holder.

I look at it like this:

Audio reproduction is a blend of human perceptions and science. Through science, we can break down and assess what we perceive as humans. When science can fully explain ( never happen ) what we perceive, we will have attained "audio nirvana".

Until that point in time, i am of the belief that anything that subtracts, distorts or makes it harder to recover recorded data is a "bad" thing. If data corruption should occur, the reproduction devices ( digital in this case ) are giving me their interpretation ( through error correction ) of what they think i should hear rather than what the performer / engineers encoded onto the disk.

Since science can verify that this "interpretation of data" ( error correction ) is taking place, isn't it more logical to want to avoid this process at all costs ? Wouldn't this lead one to believe that, due to having the shortest path with the least amount of outside influences, we are obtaining the closest resemblance of what was put on the disc ?

Obviously, we have to take into account the meager performance of our entire system. My question is, why would anyone want to introduce a device that knowingly corrupts the data to a point of requiring greater effort to reproduce and / or "fake it" and then expect better results ?

In effect, error correction means that you are getting information second-hand. Why would you want to do this when you can go directly to the source and not have to worry about mis-interpretation and / or bits and pieces of information being left out ?

Audible or not, error correction should only be viewed as further interference of the signal with the potential for corruption of the data being recovered. It only seems logical to want to avoid the error correcton mechanism itself and any other devices / treatments that would cause the error correction mechanism to come into play. Kind of like treating the cancer and then avoiding anything that might cause it to come back. Sean
>

Sean, I am in full agreement with your thesis regarding the need to eliminate, to the extent possible, any and all error and that not doing so adds a measure of uncertainty, at the least. I am just not sure that all error is audible and that the 1998 article proves error. Wonder if any products have come online in the last 5 years that would change the author's mind?...

Ed, do you swipe those CD's to the pant leg even after your multi-tasked procedure. You see, though, Ed? The CD and LP have one more commonality. Typical cleaning approach! :-)

4yanx: My thoughts on the article that i referenced are that they demonstrate that using some type of a "CD mat" is a negative, which the "DED" device demonstrated due to the need for added error correction. That is all that i wanted to show, nothing more. I could have just referenced that part of the article, but thought it would be better if everyone could read the entire article for themselves and form their own opinions.

Many of my other comments are based on the results obtained from personal testing that i've done. Based on these experiments, i know that some disc "treatments" ( creams, polishes, sprays, etc... ) can increase readability and aid in data retrieval. I also know that "truing" a CD by beveling or trimming the edge also increases readability and aids in data retrieval. Both of these effects can be demonstrated and measured electrically. Discs that were not readable prior to either of these treatments are now able to be fully read or at least read to a much greater extent.

As far as markering the edges of CD's, we've been through that before. I've found nothing but poorer performance with a reduction in disc readability on discs that were markered. As such, using a marker by itself will typically increase the amount of error correction required and reduce the speed that the disc can be read at, taking the system a step further into "signal corruption". Using a markered disc with a CD mat is kind of a double whammy, taking you two steps backward with even more error correction required and possibly making marginal ( heavily scratched ) discs unreadable on some machines. Why use either method when they have both been shown to reduce readability and add the potential for further data / signal corruption ?

My only guess is that audio is no different than any other aspect of life. That is, "folklore" is passed on from person to person, with some folks acting on that information, even if it is known to be false. As such, i was trying to "dispell" some things that may have been recommended here, but obviously, it is up to the individual to do and believe as they like. I guess we'll just sum it up by saying "different strokes for different folks". I'll do my thing and they can do theirs : ) Sean
>