TAS Recommended CD Tweak….

Impedance matching between what and what exactly? Yeah so the treatment adjusts the optical impedance of the polycarbonate surface of the disc. So what? The disc still has to reflect the light from the source so that it can be detected. Oh, so match the optical impedance between polycarbonate of the disc and the glass of the detector lens? That won't help and it's not about that. Accurate clocking of the data is what makes a real difference and that's not on the disc but in the player.

Sony spent megabux to formulate the new polycarbonate used in Blueray; it is one of the most pure manufactured materials known. The current CD or DVD grade material won't allow use of a 405 nm source, only red lasers will work with this stuff because the material is inferior. So no treatment is going to change the composition-dependent optical impedance characterstics of CD grade polycarbonate via a simple surface treatment. You'd have to change the chemistry of the interior that the light passes through as well. Get out the snakes.

The one thing that does make a real sonic improvement to CD playback is the Audiodesk that trues the spin balance of the disc. Now that's physics.

I find it interesting that many long-time posters here on the 'Gon are still skeptical of CD enhancing treatments. Until you try them and truly form a solid opinion, you are losing credibility.

I don't know why the stuff works, it just does. I have tried several different brands of liquid enhancers and each one causes a different sound in CD playback. Why? Don't worry about it.

Yes, I was initially skeptical at first too, but I tried one and was intrigued. That first treatment was Optrix. After trying a couple more different types, I decided to give Liquid Resolution a spin. Holy smoke...that stuff is great! Why? Still don't worry about it.

Yes, RH is correct about UltraBit changing the sound of CD's. His theory of why it works is a different story.

Who knows Audiofeil, perhaps billy mays already sells it :-)

Now it's your turn.

I'll give it a shot but only if they include the Ginsu knives, a Popeil pocket fisherman, and some OxyClean.

Oh yeah.

Don't forget the ShamWow.

Right back at you.

Why do folks who eagerly provide positive testimonials regarding products, which do not have a clear connection between scientic theory and its application to audio stuff, shy away from specific's in their testimonials.

In my sxperience, products do not exist which just flew into the lab on the wings of a bird. The inventor had to have basic premises (theory) to work on in the beginning, kept endless notes during developement, and in the end not only had a product which worked but could explain exactly how and why.

For some reason, in audio, we have a abundance of products which exist only because of subjective testimonials of end users (and shameless promotion by the manufacturers and their sockpuppets) yet defy any known scientific exploration or direct theory, let alone application. I've always found that curious. In the context of difference in use, exactly what does 'better', 'great'. 'improvement' and the like, mean?

I think the reference to Billy Mays is perfect. If you shout loud enuf, you will divert the attention of the audience which will not note the sillyness of the testimonial of his pitch and what he is actually demonstrating. I just love his 'potential uses' depicted in his sales of some epoxy (which can be found at your local hardware store cheaper). Sure it works well when appropriately used, but for some of the things he demonstrates chewing gum would work as well.

Perhaps RH's description of the effect of the product is correct, and it makes sense that all of his adjectives, when boiled down to a common denominator, clarity of signal, reflect some type of removal of something which interferes with the clarity of the signal and produces a cleaner signal, but should we not expect a specific body of evidence supporting the application of the underlying theory? Not being a scientist I have no understanding of how the addition of a materiel on the surface of a CD can actually effect a change in the underlying clarity of the materiel on the surface of the CD itself. Let alone if there is any long range detrimental effect. Armour All any one!

Perhaps the problem I have with the use of superlatives so often used to describe the effects of many tweeks is I can't understand why, if the effect is so great, why would there ever be a discussion of the products effectiveness in the first place. Just because a person is a cynic doesn't mean they don't have good ears. And just because a person is (potentially) gullible doesn't mean that they can hear.

Time will tell. If it really is as great as RH sez it will have a broad base of continuing support. For myself, when I have read enuf positive and intelligent testimonials by experienced audiophiles I give this a try.

I have serious doubts that one would be "floored" by applying ANYTHING to a CD.

Had not read TAS for months and just picked up a copy. Very disappointing in general.