CD other tweaks

Monroe two of my favorite places for tweaks are Galen Carol Audio, http://www.gcaudio.com/gcasteals.html, and of course Cable Co who sells almost any tweak under the sun, http://www.fatwyre.com/products.html Sluggo why settle for "adequate" CDs when sound can be improved.......

For a CD that "skips" or doesn't read properly try a little Meguiare's gently applied by hand and then polished off completely. Yeah, I know this stuff is for cars but it really works. I'm not kidding. Do not know about the long term effects, but I doubt that it does any harm. Anyway, who cares? It's a CD, not an LP.

I think a good way to learn something is to ask the question, "how can this be so?" Got to thinking about audio CD tweaks... if I were to apply any of these to a CD-ROM, what do you suppose would happen? Would my software run faster? Would it produce more accurate results? Now, I asked that with tongue in cheek, because I think you all would recognize that those are ludicrous expectations. We recognizes that the cheap mechanism and electronics in a computer does just fine at absolutely accurate reproduction (i.e., bit for bit, error-free) of what's on the CD-ROM. The only difference with a CD-ROM and CD player is that the CD player takes the additional step of reading out the data placed in buffer memory (i.e., RAM) synchronously with a stable clock and driving a D/A. Fluctuations in the motor speed spinning the CD don't matter, affecting the rate at which data is clocked INTO buffer memory. (Obviously, the average rate of input must equal the readout rate of 44.1 kilosamples/second, and a servo circuit controlling motor speed makes this so.) Differences in A/D chips, filters, and analog output electronics I understand and accept. But we're not talking about any of that -- we're talking about tweaks to the disc. So how is it that these tweaks being mentioned in this thread improve the result? Please note that I'm not arguing with you if you say you hear a difference. I respectfully accept that. Please just help me understand why this can be so.

A very close friend of mine manufactures CD's and travels internationally setting up other companies CD production. When I told him how great the "green ink" markers were, he told me I was nuts. After much discussion, we took two identical CD's, marked one with the "green ink" and left the other alone. Upon doing an A-B comparison, I came to the (grim) realization that the only benifit of the green ink was to the manufacturers and retailiers that sold it! All of my (former) precieved perceptions were there because I WANTED the green ink to work. The fact is it does not. The whole reason for bringing this up, is that the ONLY why for you to really know if any of the "tweaks" work is to do your own BLIND TEST. Listen to your ears, not to what your eyes have read! Two last thoughts: In theory, sanding the interior hub of a CD may reduce slight burrs (if any), while too much could widen the opening too much - be carefull. The second is an article I just read (my friend the CD manufacturer e-mailed it to me) that you may find enjoyable: http://www.emedialive.com/em2000/standard9.html

I agree that marker'ing CD's doesn't do squat. I can honestly say that i've never been a believer in that "tweak" even though i've done side by side comparisons. Rodney from Audio Asylum conducted a test using markered, non-markered and "de-burred" discs. This was done using a CD burner and comparing them to the original in terms of data content and the time it took to correctly extract the data. The results showed that the de-burred discs had by far the fastest read and data retrieval times with the least amount of errors while the discs that were markered ran consistently MUCH slower and had far greater reading errors than a stock disc. Draw your own conclusions from this one. Mine AREN'T in favor of markering. Sean