Anyone have experience with the Nanotec Nespa?

Leec and Hooper,

Leec mentioned that there was an improvement if the Reality Check treatment was followed by Nespa's treatment. Is there an improvement if the Nespa is followed by Reality Check? If so, then both may be useful to get the optimal sound out of the CD (but at the cost of greater PITA).

Best Regards,
John

John, I've only Nespa'd the RealityCheck CD's AFTER they were made, thinking this would give me the most bang for the buck, and it was a wonderful improvement even after the copy was made. Still, at this time, not duplicating any more RC copies, just blasting them with the halogen light and enjoying muzic as it should be.........

The obvious question now, to me, is: has anyone compared an RC CDR to an original that has been Nespa'd? Of course using two originals (in my experience, one would have to make sure the two sound the same as well first - i.e. I've found they don't all necessarily sound the same!)would be the most fair comparison: original Nespa'd (without fluids) vs. fully RC treated CDR. Then, I suppose, the next step might be comparing a fluid treated Nespa original with a Nespa original that had not been treated with fluid. And comparing the fluid treated Nespa with the CDR. All in the name of better sound with the least amount of hassle, of course. And, of "double course", in the spirit of science, but while having fun doing it.

John (Jfz), you volunteering to be the 'test subject'? Just kidding :)

PureMusic:

I've only tried the Nespa on the CD-R AFTER burning it. Per Steve Klein, the distributor of the Nespa, I also Nespa the original prior to burning. I can't verify that this makes any significant difference, but judging from what it does to the CD-R, I'd venture that it improves the original CD as well--which would, in theory, improve the burning process, because the burner would have an easier time reading the original. Whew, now I'm totally confused. What was I saying? :)