2. digital
  3. 1227242737

Rain-X as CD Enhancement Treatment

I have used the Auric Illuminator treatment on my CD collection for several years now. I am a believer in the AI, and repeated A/B tests of identical treated/untreated CDs bore out significant improvements after treatment with AI.

I ran out of the fluid and my marker dried out, so I was searching for mew treatments on the market before buying another AI kit or choosing something new. That's when I ran across this article by Greg Weaver at Soundstage, where he talks about having used Rain-X and a green marker(Staedtler Lumocolor 357, price about $3.00) as a treatment on his CDs to great effect.

http://www.soundstage.com/synergize/synergize200005.htm

Being the complete geek that I am, I had to try it for my self. I found the marker at Office Depot, and picked up a little bottle of Rain-X for $2.99. I treated a couple of CDs that I have ended up with duplicate copies of (Grant Green's Green Street, Frank Sinatra Sextet Live In Paris)and tested the Rain-X/marker treated vs. untreated disks.

Well, low and behold, the treated disks sounded notably improved; the music was clearer and louder, especially the midrange, the soundstage was larger with better definition and separation of instruments and the bass was tighter and deeper.

I can't say that the Rain-X treatment was or was not better sounding than the AI, but at the least very it is close, for a fraction of the price.

Has anyone else ever tried the Rain-X treatment?
craig_hoch
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Shadorne, the belief in the Placebo effect to explain clear observation is unscientific. Selectivity bias works both ways as if you don't want to hear a benefit you will not. If people hear a difference and the precepts of engineering cannot explain such differences, it demands better science.

I find it incredible that your embrace the statement in Stereophile and ignore the statement, "...there are things going on in digital audio that have not been identified, but influence sonic characteristics." Engineering schools, not withstanding, we don't know all natural phenomena.

I don't understand your decision to embrace "target" components, that is your decision, BUT is NOT justified on scientific bases.
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,477 posts
 
the belief in the Placebo effect to explain clear observation is unscientific.

Tbg,

That is a good one! What we "clearly observe" is the truth. Our perceptions are reality. A lot of homeopathic medicine manufacturers would be delighted with this version of the world. They also cannot prove their products work in medical trials but people swear by them. I must remember to put on my copper bracelet with magnets.

But lets not drift into philosophy - above I already pointed out some useful psychology to help explain how people sense/perceive/think/judge the world differently.

"Target" components is the synonym given by some audiophiles to the kind of system I have chosen. Gear that is not resolving enough to change in response to the mere beating of a butterfly's wings from across a field. It just plays music reliably - what is on the source is pretty much what comes out of the speakers. Of course it sounds awful but I am happy with it. I simply would not want a system that played music unreliably (changes sound audibly with the change of power cord or any other minor detail). Surely this is not so hard to understand ?
dgarretson
2,599 posts
 
In the Stereophile article, it's interesting how much credible scientific measurement & analysis the authors poured into examining a clearly observable phenomenon that in the end eluded the current limitations of science. CD Stop Light got to the heart that magazine's philosophy of separating equipment reviews (and usually associated equipment reviewers) into two camps, who separately measure specifications and conduct listening tests. Sometimes listening perceptions deviate from expectations based upon measured specs. But to dismiss the ear as an instrument is maladroit. Certainly not all reviewers are unbiased, but since the reviewer in the article claimed to bring scepticism into his review, his positive opinion formed after listening should be taken seriously. Moreover, when everyone in a large enough statistical sample forms a positive opinion through listening, except for one poster who refuses to join the experiment, then one must seriously consider that positive and negative biases eventually cancel out-- unless like David Hume you entertain the probability of mass hallucination in any public forum.

Moveover, the opinion that positive bias prevails among Audiophiles to the point that any change is perceived as an improvement, is easily controverted by the high incidence of equipment churn and audiophile nervosa.
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
The ear is arguably the best measurement device when what you are measuring is sound...say the output of a loudspeaker. However, when evaluating what goes on in the digital domain review of digital data streams (or files) is arguably perfect. A bit-for-bit comparison of two files is relatively easy to do if you have the right facilities, and will tell you for sure if the tweak caused any change. If there was a bit changed here or there (IMHO unlikely) you could review the nature of the changes and decide if any audible result could be expected.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Shadorne, You mock, "What we "clearly observe" is the truth. Our perceptions are reality." How do you think we came up with the laws of engineering?

Eldartford, again, I don't understand your logic. If the ear is the best measurement device and it hears a difference between two digital copies that are identical, are not the copies different?

IMHO, if many hear a difference, good science needs to marshal itself to account for observations of differences where science has said there should be none. Critics are also victim to selective bias when they expect no differences and hear none.
More to discover