Rain-X as CD Enhancement Treatment

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.

Hmmmm... I would say that is precisely MY argument as regards CD treatment!

Yes indeed, I adopted your description regarding the incredibly sensitive nature of a highly resolving system that would be (in your words) a "designated audiophile component". I accepted it as "fact" just to see what likely conclusions could be expected about the performance of said system.

Where we differ is on the kind of performance which is highly desirable to you but not so desirable to me.

Perhaps this is reflected in the way our carefuly-selected, respective systems perform.

Perhaps this accounts for the strong disagreement about the efficacy of high end cables, interconnects, burn-in and the degree to which many tweaks impact the sound.

I imagine you are rightfully proud because your system responds differently to a power cord or car wax treatment on the CD. That is indeed amazing - kudos to you for obtaining such a highly resolving system! Peace.

Tbg...If you "hear a difference between two digital copies that are identical" (to quote you) then your sense of hearing involves more than sonic vibration of the air. All I said it that for information in the digital domain, (before the D/A, amplification, and loudspeaker) an exact and completely non-subjective comparison can be made.

I guess you are right...you don't understand logic.