Opitrix vs. Walker Audio Vivid?

Mshan,

Walker Vivid improves resolution, provides deeper bass, and is aptly name, as the sound is very vivid (dynamic) afer treatment. I find it simpler to use than Auric Illuminator (fewer steps) and provides a much easier to discern improvement over Auric. I thought the Auric was a worthwhile improvement, but Walker Vivid beats it in sound and application.

Vivid is not as thick as Microsmooth and I have not noticed any negative effect on the discs it has been applied to. I have no concerns about using Vivid.

I've tried both the Optrix and Mapleshade's Mikro Smooth. Mikro Smooth leaves dull scratches on my CD's no matter how meticulously it's applied. Optrix sometimes leaves a visable residue on my CD's. Both products are being returned. The visable results of both products were so disturbing that I really didn't spend much time auditioning the sound. I just can't imagine that a lightly scratched CD with visable residue is a good thing.

Hi Fellow Audiophiles...Iam waiting for my Walker vivid..in few days i will put it to the test and will post my review soon..Iam a very hard core audiophile and my opinion will carry alot of weight and substance.Thanks,Hudson.

I'd just like to add, Vivid continues to impress. The effect on some titles is truly astounding.

I do not understand those who find Vivid leaves a residue. I suppose if you wait too long it might be difficult to buff. Applying some more will solve that problem. I used to use Optrix and Jena Labs Heavenly Mist, but there is no longer any reason to do so. I continue to use Vivid even on Sonopress sacds with no ill effects. The added clarity of Vivid is what strikes you. I also trim all sacds and cds with the AudioDesk.