Rain-X as CD Enhancement Treatment

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.

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.

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.

Shadorne, yes it might be possible that your gear is not up to the task. I hadn't considered that (as I was making a general point in my previous post comparing $10k to around $100 systems, not alluding to any deficiencies in your system), but it's a potentially valid point you bring up. ;)

However, having conducted similar tests even on the aforementioned mini-systems from the likes of Target, I think yours probably would display the same ability to reveal the distinction between an untreated and treated disc. :)

Re: Burn in, so you support your position because X number of others say it's so, as you said, "if it is imperceptible then how come so many people claim to hear it?"

Hmmmm... I would say that is precisely MY argument as regards CD treatment! An argument from experience, and what we would call anecdotal evidence, not a measurement. So, if pressed on the matter you turn to the received wisdom versus testing when it comes to break in? But I am not allowed to as you have written off CD treatments. Interesting, considering I'm calling on you to conduct my test, not just accept it because I say so. I see more than a bit of inconsistency there.

Sorry, but there's no Touche coming your way; I have found in this particular discussion your logic insipid, your rationale more emotional than factual. (For instance, turning the quote from Stereophile to support your position.) The community can make up its mind whether you defended your position well. However, the fact stands that I have virtually begged (pun!) you to falsify what I claim, and due to whatever impediment resides in your mind you refuse to do so. :)

There is only one way for a log jam like this to be broken, and that's by you accepting my challenge. Barring that, I finalize, "So be it."

Blessings to you, Shadorne. Though we disagree firmly here, I think you are an intelligent man and an interesting individual to banter with. I enjoy your posts; I got a kick out of your comment on the Toyota Camry thread! :)

Easy test to see if Rain-X works: apply it per its instructions to a scratched CD that normally skips (apply it and polish radially). Then play. Because Rain-X is essentially a chemical polish, filling in microscopic divots in the plastic (or windshield glass)--or, in this case, scratches in the CD's surface--the laser will now (unless it was scratched pretty badly) read the disc without error. Though the audible difference to an unscratched CD would obviously be less (as it played OK in the first place), it does seem reasonable to think there would be an audible difference: the laser's job of reading through the clear plastic surface of the disc to the aluminum pits has been made optically easier in any case.

Though I don't hear a big difference, I do use Rain-X on some CDs and to repair scratched discs and have done so for 10 or so years without any detrimental effect. You don't need to apply it before every listen, anyhow, any more than you need to apply it to your windshield before every drive.