2. digital
  3. 1227242737

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
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Nasaman, as Douglas says, in my opinion this has been most civilized as compared to what appears on Prop Head on AudioAsylum. I am a social scientists and find it quite curious that many who profess to value science, refuse to listen, Eldartford obviously excluded, and that many who listen are dismissive of worrying about explaining what they hear.

Douglas introduces another concern, namely hearing loss, but I think also that people listen for different things. One of these is to enjoy the musical reproduction that they have without the quest for greater realism. My wife characterizes my listening room as a laboratory. I cannot really disagree. I have achieved greater realism with all of my tweaking with my system, such as isolating all cables from the floor with a single ceramic isolator, but this has meant many false steps and has taken time from listening to music. But when I do listen, I enjoy the thrill of more realism. What accounts for individual differences in this regard?

Finally, why do some bother posting here and elsewhere? It is quite difficult to characterize in words what we hear. Why not just enjoy and tell no one? Is it ego?
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
Agreed this is a very civil discussion.

By the way, my idea for a bit-by-bit comparison of digital files was not to suggest that such a test would have anything to do with sonic quality, which is a subjective thing. I look on such a test as a pre-requisite for there being a sonic improvement. I say, if the bits are identical, so is the sound. If they are different, then we go listen some more.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Eldartford, if you copy two differently treated discs to a hard drive using WAV and both copies show no errors and the same level of confidence from the WAV database, are the copies bit for bit accurate?
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
Tbg...Yes, but all you would prove is that each disc was copied without error, but they could be different discs.
What is needed is software that will compare two files that have been read into the computer as you suggest, one file before disc treatment and one after.

This would be a lot of number crunching! However, just the first minute of music would comprise 5.28 million bits, and the handwriting should be on the wall by that point.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Eldartford, what does the WAV databass contain and what is the confidence level in this comparison? What does "zero errors" mean?
More to discover