Eldartford, great response! Thoughtful, considerate, the kind of discussion we can have on thes topics! Kudos! No nose out of joint here; I argue strenuously at times, but I put a lot of these :) in the text to indicate I'm not angry. :) I can get intense, but I try to keep it in perspective (i.e. not wrecking my listening session last night).
I'll take your word for it that the Bose sounds unusually good in that room. :)
If I try Rain-X on my dashboard and my gas mileage improves, would you believe it? ;) Had to throw that one in for fun.
I don't see the analogy as, well... analogous. If you had said, "put Rain-X into the gas tank," then there would be a connection (For any dullards among us, I'm NOT recommending it!). The disc treatment does touch directly (Well, actually, it doesn't directly TOUCH it...)on the performance of the laser assembly, so the issue is direct, not peripheral, as in the car dashboard illustration. For that reason, no, I would not believe you if you told me that it improved mileage. However, if you discussed an adjustment relating to the engine or drive train then I would be without evidence to contradict you unless I tried it out. That is the situation with the disc treatment. It does touch (there we go again...) upon the operation of the laser assembly.
Yes, I would have nothing to say about the optical gear you work with. I also do not repeat the treatments on CD's. It is permanent from my experience, one treatment is "eternal". :) I tested that as well, pulling out discs that had been treated three years ago and re-treating them. Zero additional gain, zero additional audible improvement. This was consistent with my thinking that the gain comes from the initial treatment. Either removal of a coating or making the surface more highly reflective (or both) contributes to the advantage of treating them. In my experience it never needs repeating.
My discs have remained in perfect condition, and some I have had treated for more than five or six years. I wrote an article about Jena Labs' disc treatment product, but was cleaning discs prior to that. I have used a variety of treatments, from simple washing with dish soap and water, to "mystery" solutions, and have used the aforementioned Jena Labs system, which they point out is not a polish, as well as Turtle Wax. If anyone wants to use car polish, I will add a disclaimer that it's not designed for CD's. If you are anxious about potential damage to discs, then use only "approved" solutions by audio manufacturers.
I have found typically two very discernible levels of improvement; one level from cleaning type activites, and the other by polishing type activities. Frankly, now I simply skip the cleaning step and go right to the polish step. The results seem to be the same as if I had cleaned prior to polishing.
Eldartford, I am impressed that you are willing to consider a test. You are more open to practical discovery than I gave you credit for. I would urge you, however, to try two differerent "tests".
#1 Do your critical listening at the level desired. Then, use a harmless cleaning solution, i.e. Dish soap and water, or an audio industry cleaning solution. Conduct listening comparison test. Then, return to the "shop" and polish the disc, with either Rain-X or polish. Once again conduct listening session.
-I'm not sure of your rig or of your (I say this sincerely, not jokingly) hearing acuity, but I believe you should easily hear improvement with the second step for sure.
#2 Remove the cleaning step from the test. Simply compare the polished and unpolished disc. In my experience the polish is the key to the result. And it is with this method that the effect becomes most noticeable.
I would be very interested in what you discover. I think the distinction in sound is so great that I do not need to tell you to approach the test "with an open mind." If it works as it has in my system, the difference will be immeditate and significantly noticeable. You may want to conduct the test with others, i.e. family members, as well once you have done it. :)
