2. digital
  3. 1219090506

TAS Recommended CD Tweak….


In The August issue of The Absolute Sound, RH gives a glowing review of a product from Digital Systems & Solutions – “UltraBit Platinum Optical Impedance Matching Disc Treatment System.” According to RH, he was floored and, “….This wasn’t a subtle difference; there was a wholesale increase in apparent resolution, space, clarity, soundstage dimensions, and vividness.”
Apparently, this is a liquid solution that is applied to CDs and DVDs ($65/bottle).

Regardless of the whole “advertising thing,” I don’t believe someone like RH would put his reputation on the line by giving a bogus review. I wonder what, “This wasn’t a subtle difference…” means to the average person’s ears?

Also, in the same article, RH makes the statement, “…Similarly, it’s incontrovertible that a CD-R burned from a CD sounds better than the original CD.” I did not know this. Have any of you come to the same conclusion?
2chnlben
2chnlben OP
595 posts
 
Ozzy...

Did you purchase both the cleaner and the UltraBit solution, or just the UltraBit solution - do you clean your discs prior to adding the UltraBit??

There is quite a bit of online information regarding optical impedance matching. I guess my real skepticism has more to do with my own ability to perceive any difference. I’m one of the oddballs who can’t hear much (if any) difference in cables and tweaks. For only $65.00 I will try it though. I do not expect to hear any REAL improvements. However, there is always that possibility...

I'll let you know if I'm "floored!"
ozzy's avatar
ozzy
7,455 posts
 
I purchased e bottles of the ulta bit and one of the cleaner.the cleaner thus far has not been used
stilljd
159 posts
 
El, Shadorne, All,

How much error is inherent in error correction? Error correction tries to recreate the original through mathematical prediction, but most predictive mathematical models are not perfect, just good enough for the purpose.

Or is my understanding flawed?

Jim S.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
drubin
3,274 posts
 
You may all remember some of the earlier discussion of the Memory Player. If my memory serves, Robert Harley and others argued, as Shadorne has, that Read Until Right can not be the reason the player sounds good, if indeed it does. It's not about RUR for the reasons Shadorne outlines. And yet, there still seems to be something going on. Because Harley himself has said that copies can sound better.

I remember a little paragraph blurb in an early issue of Wired magazine in which they took aim at something Reference Recordings was doing (direct-to-CD, I think it may have been), claiming that clearly RR didn't understand digital technology or they wouldn't being doing what they were doing. Guess what? I'm pretty sure it was this author who didn't know what he was doing, who knew just enough about digital to be dangerous. These people are everywhere, trying to save us poor souls from the deceptions of charlatans. That's good, but things are often not as simple as they first appear to be.
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
Stilljd...Your understanding is flawed. Error correction is 100 percent up to the point where there are more errors than the code is set up for. The link that Shadorne provided is pretty good.

Another point...If an error occurs there is no extra time required to correct it. (Some have suggested that error correction causes the dreaded jitter). All the data with or without errors runs through the algorithm all the time.
More to discover