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
OK. I did the test.

First of all I connected my CD player directly to one of my Behringer DEQ2496. The 2496 logs the peak signal level over the course of a complete CD. I made the hookup directly so that there was no gain control in the signal path. I played a CD twice, before and after treatment. For the two playings, the peak signal level was identical for both channels...-4.2dB for Left and -4.1 for right. That proves to me that there is no increase of loudness as a result of treatment.

With regard to sonic quality, I heard no difference, but this kind of comparison is difficult, and highly subjective, and everyone is free to believe what they want. I know what I think.
Eldartford, thank you for conducting a test of the disc treatment. I respect people who actually will try such things. I also will accept your experience and not debate it. Variety of experiences makes for interesting exchanges between audio lovers.
So, Doug, are you changing your opinion? I continue to be perplexed at sincere beliefs that some hear differences and others do not. I am also fascinated that some love one wine while others hate it. Humans are a varied lot.

I remember several years ago sitting between John Curl and an TAS reviewer listening to a demonstration of the Shun Mook speakers. John and I were struck by the improvement gained by a slight change they made in the speakers. The reviewer heard nothing. My only judgment was that I would pay no attention to his reviews thereafter. He was soon gone.
Not in the least. I have said before and maintain now that I have heard the difference in my rig between treated and untreated discs clearly. I simply wanted to thank a man who was willing to actually try it. I cannot explain why he did not hear it. I also am not going to continue debate with someone who has tried and did not hear the change. That would be foolish. I will vigorously debate those who argue only from hunches, but there is no value arguing when someone tried and it failed.

I believe due to hearing abilities, the type of treatment used (I much prefer polishing to cleaning), environment, etc. that some will hear it easily and others will not. I have a nearly acoustically perfect room, so even subtle changes are quite readily heard.

If the changes due to treatment were such that I couldn't be sure I had heard them, I wouldn't bother discussing it.
I also make judgments based upon what others say they can or cannot hear. If someone says they cannot hear what I feel should be easily heard, you can bet I won't trust their opinion.

I have had audiophiles come into my room, and I have conducted listening tests on such things as power cords and disc treatments. They have insisted that there is no change. In the course of time I found out they played in live bands extensively. Uh, huh. They had hearing loss. No way would I trust their judgment in what could be heard. :)

It's one thing to have a variance in opinion between what is "preferred" sound. It's another altogether not to even detect the sound. I'm not judging Eldartford on his test; I wasn't there. But I certainly have not been changed in my conclusions from my listening tests.
Douglas_schroeder and Tbg...Note my words..." but this kind of comparison is difficult, and highly subjective...". Implied here is that there might have been a change (improvement?) but if so it was not great enough for me to notice vs what I heard an hour ago. In this test you can't go back and listen to the untreated disc again. The test which someone should do (probably someone who sells a disc treatment product) is a bit-for-bit comparison of digital data files from treated and untreated discs. Maybe there's a reason why they don't do this.