Rain-X as CD Enhancement Treatment

I'll add that when I modded that Sony, I started with changes to power into the optics, motor, and servo, and worked my way through the various digital circuits, dealing with replacement of the master clock last. I wanted to be able to distinguish between collective changes made in the digital domain and a clock upgrade. Taken together, changes in the digital section other than the clock, surpassed the replacement clock in significance. Go figure.

Shadorne, yes, but how to you account for the differences in sound that I described? Please don't say we only think we heard them.

If what you heard is similar to what is decribed on DAGOGO by Norm Luttbeg then it sounds like it was reduced jitter. This can be explained if you think about a CD rotating and vibrating or the "burned layer" (usually a dye) being uneven from the burner (vibrating disc as it is burnt). The laser pick up will need to make contiunous adjustments in order to remain in focus - since the adjustments are likely repeated upon each revolution of the disc then you create a sinusoidal adjustment to the laser.

If the CDP has poor isolation between the laser ciruitry and the DAC then you can create jitter. Normally jitter is most audible when it is NOT RANDOM - i.e when it is periodical. You get sidebands not unlike IMD distortion rather than white noise thay you might get from completely random jitter.

The above would be a possible hypothetical "complex" explanation. In both cases (mat or no mat) the CD is bit perfect but the equipment is underperforming due to additional complexities in reading an uneven disc.

However, I would be cautious about jumping to conclusions, testing like this is a minefield. The above is just one of many possible answers. For example, another explantion could simply be the setting of the volume - playing the treated CD a mere 1 db SPL louder would probably be just enough for everyone to hear an improvement without anyone noticing the volume was slightly different.

Anyway, the fact that Exact copy proved that the two discs were identical (if we accept that) then we are led to suspect either the equipment playback capability or test conditions as suspect. If I was sure it was the gear and had completely eliminated everything else then I'd get rid of the CDP and find one more reliable that does not need a band aid "mat" to work properly.

Shadorne...I don't think that Tbg is talking about digital errors, which, as you described, are completely avoided by use of the RS error-correcting code. Anyone who claims that "bits ain't bits" is simply ignorant of digital technology. Tbg says that identical (bit for bit) files sound different when run through the same D/A, amplification, and speakers. In particular it's been said that the sound is louder after the CD is treated. Absurd!

I was not there when this treatment was demo'd so I can't dispute the statement that many people heard a difference. But the reason is not to be found in the digital domain. Many people believe in UFOs.

Eldartford, yea, and many believed in alchemy. Please read what I said about treated disc, in my experience not sounding any different. I have withstood some grief about that from others more accustomed to listening first.

Shadorne, at last you are at least seeking alternative hypotheses. All was doing is reporting several observations.

Eldartford, I have said that the disc which is treated sounds louder than one which is untreated. The phrase "sounds" is perceptual. I would not assert that it actually increases level. However, that is what it sounds like, there is that much of a change in the sound when discs are treated. The entire performance seems much larger, more clean and extended, and louder. On an $80K rig with true full range speakers it's not subtle at all. I have never had a skeptic fail to be swayed after hearing the results. Neither the previous-skeptics nor I have a difinitive explanation, but the results are - yes - undeniable.

Your analogies to UFO's are strained. However, I did see a UFO once. It was orange and triangular, and I do not recall it making a sound, though tried listening for it. It flew like an airplane (straight, not terrifically fast) but, again, it made no sound. I was about 12 at the time, and I told my parents. They scoffed at it, until the next moring Paul Harvey speaking through the kitchen radio announced, "Numerous UFO sightings over Northern Illinois and Southern Wisconsin last night..." My mother was in the kitchen - you should have seen her face! The UFO was a plane painted with gray and florescent stripes taking air samples at dusk as it was flying North. In the twilight at its height it appeared to the naked eye as an orange triangle. The lack of sound was likely due to the influence of wind.

Perceptions are not always wrong. The answer to what lies behind the perceptions is usually logically explainable. However, to scoff at someone who is experiencing something perceptually is often nothing other than arrogance.

I happen not to believe in aliens. I hold that all "UFO" sightings have logical, natural explanations. However, that does not stop people from seeing things which they cannot explain.

Similarly, when individuals like myself report as accurately as we can the experiences we have when conducting listening tests, it's not helpful for someone to argue that we are delusional (placebo effect). So, kindly get off your arrogant UFO analogies. :)

Shadorne fumbled the ball. How would you like to conduct the simple disc treatment/listening test? Will you take the same position that because you already "know" it can't change the outcome you won't conduct the test?

If so, we are assembling a very interesting case study for objectivist behavior. :)