Magnetization & Demagnetization any conclusions?

A mutual friend of both myself,and my pal with the Furutech demag unit,has thrown a fly into the equation.He ststes that since my Furutech demag pal has so much static(all year round),the improvements of using the device could also be reducing static.Hence,better sound.Personally,I have absolutely no idea as to what's what!
One thing I must state,is my own dedicated room has 24/7 50 % humidity,at all times.I have not ever had a hint of a pop,or tick(thank God).
Friend #2 is a very suspicious guy(one reason for my past poor behavior/posts,partly from conditioning in a REALLY critical club/sorry for the umpteenth time....well my own fault,actually,no passing of the buck....but I tried-:).I have asked him to speak with a fellow hobbyist/reviewer,who is very "in the circle" of these things(yet I am positive the posters,here,are correct in what they hear as improvements).
My ONLY concern,as it applies to me,is that reading the Walker Web pages,about the "demag effect" of the Talisman(I am now aware of better active products,but the "demag" effect is gained,though to a lesser degree, here),it clearly states(in the given reviews)that it "also" de-statics the LP(or CD,or whatever)as well.
I want to make sure that it is NOT the de-static aspect,that is being heard by the folks here,or my friend,as an improvement,thinking it may be demagnification.
You all know better than me,but it can't hurt to delve farther,for myself.
Best.

Sirspeedy, I will be interested to hear more about your journey exploring all of this. Thanks for the continuing update about your thinking.
.

Rushton,please understand that I am ONLY "scoping out" thoughts,and feedback from experienced folks lurking here.I will not be able to add anything of substance,IMO!
I am simply intrigued by this new tweak.If it turns up anything that can better my already extremely satisfying pleasure of my own system,then all the better.I am trying to figure out(and I'm sure there will be my own rationalized spin,to satisfy my personal decision)if I really need to look into this further,in my particular listening environment.
Sadly,and honestly I am SO missing the pleasure of spinning my LP's(since I am still awaiting my new Graham Phantom)that I "think" my CD sound is getting really good.
Hmm!!!I must be halucinating,a bit,at least.
Yet,my latest 2 CD's of Annie DeFranco("Canon"),and Jazz At Preservation Hall("Shake That Thing")are SO well recorded that maybe I can rationalize for another few weeks.We'll see.
Best.

Sirspeedy,
What was your previous tone arm, and I would like to hear your thoughts on the phantom after you give it some time.
Happy listening!!

Pedrillo,my previous arm was the Graham 2.2(I think you have this...no?).I liked it alot!
The Phantom I can comment on now,as my friend owns it,with almost the exact system as me.It is superb,and a bit more forgiving(as to fluid)from the 2.2.
HUGE soundstage/dynamics/musical flow,using the Transfiguration Orpheus cartridge.This is the ONLY cartridge(other than the Temper-v) I can comment on,with this arm. The ONLY reason for my moving to the Phantom was the Orpheus is SO GOOD,that I felt the fluid sensitivity of my 2.2 would no longer be needed,"based upon the different dynamic presentations" of each LP played.I wanted to feel secure in the fact that I was getting everything from the incredible Orpheus.In other words...with the 2.2 one could easily set fluid/vta/vtf for different LP's constantly,as each disc has a different dynamic characteristic(brought about by pgm material,pressing type,cutting,AND previous cartridge wear,if the LP was bought used).Over the long haul this drove me crazy(as is apparent from reading my posts-:).
The Phantom completely does away with any perceived "resonant" characteristic,using the Orpheus(which has lots of energy).The difference is quite astounding!
Hope this helps,even if off topic.