How come there is no thread on the RealityCheck?

Audioengr, your lower jitter theory is a reasonable hypothesis, but if jitter from reading the disc is the culprit, this then begs the question of why, given the low cost of memory and computing power, doesn't every player above the entry level read and re-clock the data to the dac thereby eliminating this variable from the equation? This seems like a much more elegant solution to the problem than the meticulous cleaning of discs and then re-writing to a blank CD which has a limited lifetime.

There are numerous high end players that do re-clock the data. I wonder if this re-writing process has any audible effect on their playback?

I am also curious why I never see any test data on the bit stream coming from a transport before and after such treatments are applied. With the right equipment it would be very easy to analyze this stream of bits and see what if any differences there are. It might not tell us what it would sound like but at least it would demonstrate that there are differences.

Herman, great thoughts. Were I to have the equipment I would try it.

Audioengr, I had two cds that would no longer play because of scratches. I did succeed in copying them using my computer. When I got the RealityCheck, I tried to copy one from the original. It failed partially through the burning. I then copied the copy. It was far superior. Recently I recopied using my computer and one of the black cdrs supplied by George. I then copied it using the RealityCheck at home it was further improved. I found it somewhat better than the RC copy using the silver cdr.

>>what is blatantly obvious to the rest of us<<

I guess I'd feel like that if I was snookered into an order of snake oil and left holding the pouch. Keep on hearing what you want to hear. It'll be there for as long as you want it to be. Maybe you can turn lead into gold next.
LOL

Tvad wrote:
"If one burns a black CD on a laptop computer running on battery power, and the copy is made at a low speed, would it then follow that this burned CD would conceivably be better than the original, notwithstanding the inferior clock on the computer?"

Could be better, but no guarantees. Depends on the power and grounding in PC and the clock jitter, as well as the quality of the burner CDROM or DVDROM.

Herman wrote:
"why, given the low cost of memory and computing power, doesn't every player above the entry level read and re-clock the data to the dac thereby eliminating this variable from the equation?"

This is understandable. To make a system like this behave just like a normal CD player is a HUGE undertaking. There is a lot of software development because of things like: what happens when you decide to skip ahead on the current playing track or skip back to the last track? This is simple for a regular CD player, but if the data is cached in memory, there may be a large latency to flush the memory cache and refill it with new data and then begin playing it. The system must actually "look-ahead" and predict what the user will likely do with the remote buttons, otherwise, there is a big latency penalty. There is also the issue of DVD-A and SACD. The computer model wil not work for these, so the player must revert back to a standard-type player. It's really a can of worms to make is behave like a standard universal player.