The difficulty arises when trying to compare various CD enhancers and cleaners and methods. When the same CD is used to compare two or more cleaners/enhancers, if the first one is effective in improving the sound, then there may be no further improvement to the sound by applying the second cleaner/enhancer, you know, since the first one did the job. And if there is further improvement to the sound of the CD then the conclusion could be the two cleaners/enhancers perform different functions. We’re not even sure what the functions of the various products are.
Different folks get different results. It’s difficult if not impossible to obtain consensus on CD cleaners/enhancers, which one work best, or how they work.
Removing mold release compound is frequently given as the objective but I see no evidence that MRC is used in the manufacture of CDs. If different CDs of the same recording are used for the comparison, there is the possibility that one is hearing the inherent difference in sound between the CDs, not the effects of the cleaner/enhancer (s). The optical characteristic of the polycarbonate layer has been predetermined as part of the geometry of the CD system, what with the nanoscale data and laser beam, so changing that optical characteristic should be avoided.
I’m all for “many systems, many testers, many CDs” approach to testing, generally speaking.
Different folks get different results. It’s difficult if not impossible to obtain consensus on CD cleaners/enhancers, which one work best, or how they work.
Removing mold release compound is frequently given as the objective but I see no evidence that MRC is used in the manufacture of CDs. If different CDs of the same recording are used for the comparison, there is the possibility that one is hearing the inherent difference in sound between the CDs, not the effects of the cleaner/enhancer (s). The optical characteristic of the polycarbonate layer has been predetermined as part of the geometry of the CD system, what with the nanoscale data and laser beam, so changing that optical characteristic should be avoided.
I’m all for “many systems, many testers, many CDs” approach to testing, generally speaking.