Anyone have experience with the Nanotec Nespa?


I'd be interested in your experience, including whether you have compared it with the Reality Check, used it in conjunction with the R Check, with fluids, etc. Thanks

for those not familiar: http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/nanotech/nespa.html
jfz
Just got my unit this week. WOW, it really works. Bass is tighter, top end cleaner and more transparent, a big improvement all around. I had to pay full retail but once heard it is well worth the price of admission!
Thanks Leec. I assume that not too many people have the Nespa, or I suppose maybe they are not very excited about it. It certainly has not generated discussion like the Reality Check! In any case, thanks for sharing your thoughts about it. Do you use the Reality Check as well? If so, I'd be interested in a brief "comparison".
I heard it demo'ed at CES in the Audio Note room on a track I know very well. Playing the track "as is" on this system was a treat to begin with and I hardly had any complaints. After treating the disc and playing again I noticed a more dimensional and life like presentation. The "as is" disc presented the music like a film on a screen, flat. After treating it was much more 3 dimensional and layered.
Actually I have a RealityCheck duplicator. Yes I do like it but it's the biggest pain in the ass to use. First you have to clean both the original CD and then clean the CDR, then copy it then make a lable, a VEY time consumming job. I'd rather be listening to music, that's what's it all about, correct? The Nespa is simple and quick, for the very short time I've had the unit, it is fantastic, I've even used it on my black duplicated CDR's and heard improvements, but I think I'll stop using hte RealityCheck unit and just Nespa all CD's and get back to listening.

After talking to the importer of the Nespa, he's sold now 50 units, there is a 3 week wait now for more, I would think there are now more Nespa units out there than RealityCheck units. My own RealityCheck unit will not be used for a long time.
Lee
I own both, and I agree with Leec that the RealityCheck,if you want to extract the maximum from it, is a PITA to use. But it and George's fluids DO work, so I just suck it up and slave through the ritual. Really, it's not that much different than cleaning LPs. As for the Nespa, I own the Pro version, and it does work extremely well. I was at the same demo as Dlwask, and I was pretty stunned by the difference. I picked up my Nespa at CES, as I had ordered it a couple of months earlier. The main differences I noticed were a significant increase in resolution and a much more dimensional sound. It was not subtle, at least to these ears.
Leec and Hooper,

Leec mentioned that there was an improvement if the Reality Check treatment was followed by Nespa's treatment. Is there an improvement if the Nespa is followed by Reality Check? If so, then both may be useful to get the optimal sound out of the CD (but at the cost of greater PITA).

Best Regards,
John
John, I've only Nespa'd the RealityCheck CD's AFTER they were made, thinking this would give me the most bang for the buck, and it was a wonderful improvement even after the copy was made. Still, at this time, not duplicating any more RC copies, just blasting them with the halogen light and enjoying muzic as it should be.........
The obvious question now, to me, is: has anyone compared an RC CDR to an original that has been Nespa'd? Of course using two originals (in my experience, one would have to make sure the two sound the same as well first - i.e. I've found they don't all necessarily sound the same!)would be the most fair comparison: original Nespa'd (without fluids) vs. fully RC treated CDR. Then, I suppose, the next step might be comparing a fluid treated Nespa original with a Nespa original that had not been treated with fluid. And comparing the fluid treated Nespa with the CDR. All in the name of better sound with the least amount of hassle, of course. And, of "double course", in the spirit of science, but while having fun doing it.
John (Jfz), you volunteering to be the 'test subject'? Just kidding :)
PureMusic:

I've only tried the Nespa on the CD-R AFTER burning it. Per Steve Klein, the distributor of the Nespa, I also Nespa the original prior to burning. I can't verify that this makes any significant difference, but judging from what it does to the CD-R, I'd venture that it improves the original CD as well--which would, in theory, improve the burning process, because the burner would have an easier time reading the original. Whew, now I'm totally confused. What was I saying? :)
Last Sat. we treated a CD ( previously treated with RealDisc and ClearBit on the rim) with the Nespa. We then burned RCCD CD-R. Compared to a pre-Nespa version, the Nespa version was improved.

RCCD and Nespa work well together.

Steve
OK, this took some time but I made 4 RCCD's: One of the black CDR's was Nespa'd before making the copy, one was never Nespa'd the 3rd was Nespa'd before and after and the 4th Nespa'd only after it was RealityChecked! Got this so far. The best sounding of all was the one that was Nespa'd after it was copied via the RealityCheck process. Nespaing (a new word now) a blank CDR before it was copied, did not have the openess and bass control that a copied RCCD/Nespa CD had. This was not subtle.
Still, as in my previous posts, I'm enjoying just zapping each CD with the Nespa unit and forgoing using the RCCD process, yes it's better doing all but the difference and time it takes is just not worth it, IMHO, yours may differ, or you have a lot of free time.
Enjoy, hope this has helped.
The question remains: how much improvement does EACH provide? (Nespa vs RC). I realize each can improve the other, but what if a person can only afford one. Has anyone done a direct comparison: just Nespa vs just RC?
Nespa#1 is soooo gooood.
It made me enjoy in CD's which I have not listen to
for a long time because they sounded badly.
Obviously it helps to overcome failure in manufacturing process of CDs.
XRCDs treated with Nespa are equal to the best SACDs.
Leec, I believe you about your tests although I will try them myself, but from my understanding of how the Nespa works or is said to work, I would expect no improvement on a cd-r.

As I understand it the Nespa heats the cd and gets a closer bond between the silver cover and the substrata by removing space between the two occupied by gas. Since the cd-r has no overlay, at least as I understand how they work, I don't see how there could be any benefit. I would have expected a fourth disc where the original was Nespaed and then copied would have been best and that Nespaing the cd-r had no effect.

Since my vinyl is so good and digital is getting equally tedious, maybe I should only listen to vinyl.
Jfz, you should also know that the Nespa everyone is talking about here is the $895 Pro version.
Leec, Thanks for your comparisons; that was helpful. John
Does anyone know what the difference is between a Normal and a Pro Nespa?
More Light/
Shorter Zap time?
and most of all for the numerous CD's that we have differentiating the Nespaing (thanks Lee) treated CD's from zapping them again in the Nespa by mistake and it's effect of it!
Nev
Guys a question(I did read the 6 moons review).
Are the Nespa treated cd's permanently improved?Yes,No?
How do we buy one?Who carries the product?
Assuming the bulb lasts for 800cd's,then what?Do you change the bulb and you are good for another 800 cd's?How many cd's an average audiophile have?I would think it makes sense for the unit to be able to be rented ,used and returned for a fee.That is if the Nespa treated cd's are permanent.
Any ideas?
Thanks
George
George,
Thanks for your interest in the Nespa units. First once a CD is treated with either the Nespa #1 or Nespa Pro units, it is permanent. As for how long do they last before the bulb burns out? Japan can't even tell me this but so far, with over 50 units sold, only one has burned out and that was my own unit. I used it on hundreds of CD's then sent it to Bill Gaw of ETM for review, who had it for several weeks and did MANY cd's himself, many more than I had already done. From Bill it travelled with me to CES and then it was given to Clark Johnsen of PF to travel with throughout CA. In Clark's travels the light stopped working.
Japan's policy is to have me ship the units back and they replace the units with a brand new unit, no charge, to the customer, just the customer will pay the postage to return the unit to SOS and pay for having a unit shipped back to them, a very small fee.
We now have 4 dealers and more are coming on board. Please feel free to contact Sounds Of Silence for your local dealer.
Steve
SOS

PS: We are currently over 50 units in back-orders.
Steve, is the bulb inaccessible or wired in? Why is it not just possible to unscrew the bad bulb and replace?

Norm
Hi Norm, I've asked this same question and currently Japan wants to just send me new replacement units. Seems excessive but at this time that's the way it is. I've not tried to open the units so I can't answer your first question.
Steve
Steve, I think the Nespa is next. See: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ddgtl&1130940695&openflup&192&4#192
Norm, maybe, maybe not. I'm only the importer and with 75 now sold, many are on back-order (I think yours will be in the shipment if you are getting one from our mutual friend) we shall see. It does change the sound of CD's, for the better, I've never claimed, nor do I understand, how this works, but once Nespa'd there's no doubt there is a BIG improvement. So much so I've already sold my RealityCheck duplicator. Yes the duplicator works also but it's also a PITA.
I'm told by Japan that there are now over 500 Nespa units sold :-)
Please keep us posted, once you receive yours, about what you think, your thoughts are much valued.
I've heard several Nespa'd discs, and there is a difference. Whether the Nespa disc is better than the original is for the end user to decide.

The AA RealityCheck thread demonstrates that when it comes to tweaks, there is nothing in the audiophile world that doesn't exist outside the audiophile world.

I'll be interested to read the first post that provides a link to the same CD spinner used by Nespa, and the corresponding light bulb. The flashlight aisle at Fry's Electronics is full of extreme intensity LED flashlights with bazillions of lumens. The bulb used in the Nespa can't be hard to track down and install in a generic spinner for considerably less than the Nespa's asking price.
Tvad, yours is a curious post. Of course, tweaks and everything else in audio is also outside the world of audio. Even if it is the case that the Reality Check unit is the same as that available for a lower price, there are other units, namely most computers that fail to achieve what is achieved in this unit. Why? And if the RC unit is better than what appears to be the same, what would you conclude?

Similarly with the bright light and the Nespa.

Both George Louis and the inventor of the Nespa have spent time developing this and hopefully both will get a return on their successful developing it. Perhaps, the internet limits the return they can get and perhaps many will be discouraged from bothering given the limited return. If so, the internet will have killed tweaks and possibly all innovations.

Interestingly in the case of the CLC and the IC, where people cannot reverse engineer the tweak, they demand to be told how they work or refuse to be interested. Were I to be an inventor, I would, of course, tell such people to go to hell.

02-11-06: Tbg
Tvad, yours is a curious post.
Why? Because I question the possibility of re-packaging at a ridiculous mark-up?

Of course, tweaks and everything else in audio is also outside the world of audio. Even if it is the case that the Reality Check unit is the same as that available for a lower price, there are other units, namely most computers that fail to achieve what is achieved in this unit. Why?
Because out of cost cutting concerns, most computers do not have the same high quality DVD/CD drives that are installed in dedicated duplicators. Basic economics.

And if the RC unit is better than what appears to be the same, what would you conclude?
The RC unit thus far has not been demonstrated to be better than the IO Shop burner, so I conclude nothing.

Interestingly in the case of the CLC and the IC, where people cannot reverse engineer the tweak, they demand to be told how they work or refuse to be interested.
Every invention with substance and a basis in science can be reverse engineered, as history has proved. Only devices based on pseudo-science cannot be reverse engineered because their benefits are myth, and their science is non existant. Like crystal balls, rabbit's feet and palm reading.
If the product works as claimed and the price is exorbitant, then market forces will drive the price down as competing, lower priced copies enter the marketplace. The question is, will audiophiles recognize the value of the cheaper, but equivalent knock-offs, or will they ascribe some greater effectiveness to the original and continue to pay the higher price?
02-12-06: Onhwy61
If the product works as claimed and the price is exorbitant, then market forces will drive the price down as competing, lower priced copies enter the marketplace.
True, in the development of most products.

However, it appears that in the case of the RealityCheck CD burner, an existing CD burner was co-opted and marketed at an exhorbitant mark-up. This is in contrast to the market forces argument, and the crux of the debate currently surrounding the RealityCheck CD burner.
Tvad. you missed my point. Innovation takes genius and money. As technology evolves, some will see it potential in new areas and take it there in the hope of making money as after all we are a capitalist system. They will set a price for their new product and make it available. If it does not sell, they lose. If it does, others will seek to benefit from the break through by improving on it or by cost cutting, such as making it in China.

The notion that you continue to propound, "exorbitant mark-up" is just sales rhetoric for those seeking to undercut the innovator's price as well as non-capitalist critics mimicking Lenin's notion of intrinsic worth.

We still do not know if the look alike burner is the equal of the RealityCheck burner nor whether the look alike cdrs are the same as the RC cdrs, but I suspect that many will try the cheaper versions as well they should.

My other point was that even if Louis merely repackages the burner and cdrs, before the internet this would never have been discovered. As such, the internet may discourage innovations or certainly make their shelf life much shorter. Those with access to cheaper overseas labor may be the only ones with the true potential to innovate, safe with the realization that their secrets can be kept.
The notion that you continue to propound, "exorbitant mark-up" is just sales rhetoric for those seeking to undercut the innovator's price as well as non-capitalist critics mimicking Lenin's notion of intrinsic worth.
I see your point more clearly, Tbg, but you misunderstand my point as well with this statement. I do not believe Mr. Louis was the innovator of a new burner. I believe he purchased burners identical to the IO Shop burners and re-sold them without doing a thing to them. Believe me, CD duplicators existed long before Mr. Louis' product. He himself says in one of his Positive Feedback replies that the burners he uses are sourced from Alesis, among other manufacturers. The next clue to indicate that he doesn't do anything to the burners is his firmware mea culpa on AA. Therefore, I do not believe this is a case of an innovator's product being copied and sold at a lower price. His appears to be a case of someone taking an off-the-shelf item and re-selling it at a 150% mark-up. That's exorbitant.

The same exorbitant mark-up applies to the black CDRs that are available for $30/100 that he re-sells fo $100.

His innovation would seem to be the packaging of a good quality burner, excellent quality black CDRs, and some mystery fluid. I'll give him credit for discovering the recipe for the package, but until he offers some proof of his technical innovation, or the patent for which he claims to have applied, he remains no more than a re-packager, and is deserving of the attention he is getting.

I'm all for innovation. I love innovation. True innovation that's verifiable. Not pseudo-innovation that's cloaked in mystery, ambiguity and double speak.
Tvad, the free market is a continuous process. At any given point in time sub-markets may exist where supply and demand are not in balance. Think of the plywood market in the Gulf coast a few days before a major hurricane. The audiophile market is also a sub-market with its own barriers of entry. The lack of perfect information flow, despite the internet, can allow someone to market a generic product from one market as a custom made product in another. This is probably what happened with the CD burner. In the long run (just before we're all dead), market forces will drive the so-called custom product down to the price of the generic version. It doesn't happen over night, but I imagine George Louis cancelled his IPO plans.

Tbg, have you been reading Ayn Rand lately? Innovation rarely is the work of genius, it is more commonly the product of hard work, persistence, luck and a lot more hard work. Free markets don't work without the flow of information. To say the internet, a universally available channel for the quick dissemination of info, may inhibit innovation is a gross misreading of basic economic theory.
The lack of perfect information flow, despite the internet, can allow someone to market a generic product from one market as a custom made product in another. This is probably what happened with the CD burner.
I wholeheartedly agree, Onhwy61, and I suspect it explains the Nanotec Nespa, too.
Onhwy61, I have never found much benefit in deductive theories like economic theory. There never has been such a thing as free and quick dissemination of information, although the internet is moving that way with its search engines.

Perhaps Mr. Louis' genius is in trying various burners and picking the best for modification which he also conceived. No one has proved that the RealityCheck unit is just an off the shelf piece.

Tvad, we are talking past each other as usual. For some unknown and unjustified reason you believe the RealityCheck is unmodified and that the cd-rs are available at a much lower price. You also deny that the research that went into the selection of this burner for modification or these cd-rs, even if only for remarketing fails to justify any profit.

Your is basically a naive consumer's perspective that no one is entitled to a profit or that the profit should be what you judge to be appropriate. Lenin also believed this and, of course, it is the basis for communism.

Maybe George will sell no more RealityCheck burners, although my email would suggest this is not true, but it is also possible that those buying the cheaper unit, which George is also going to sell, fails to give them the benefits that others have gotten with the RealityCheck. I know this does not matter to you, and that you will continue harping that consumers are fools, a lament that many businessmen who tried to sell something that no one bought have often uttered.
Tvad, we are talking past each other as usual. For some unknown and unjustified reason you believe the RealityCheck is unmodified and that the cd-rs are available at a much lower price.
My reasons have been documented by those who have apparently tracked down the identical items offered for lower prices elsewhere. You are caught in the unfortunate position of an early adopter who got caught spending more than you had to spend.

You also deny that the research that went into the selection of this burner
No, I have never denied this. In fact, in my earlier post I gave George credit for finding the burner, discs and liquid and assembling the "kit".

for modification
No modification has yet been proved by Mr. Louis by way of a patent or patent pending number, for which he claimed to have applied.

Your is basically a naive consumer's perspective that no one is entitled to a profit or that the profit should be what you judge to be appropriate.
No, I have never denied Mr. Louis a profit, nor have I made any suggestion of what profit he should charge, although I have said that I personally find a 150% mark-up exorbitant. I have offered information to potential buyers of the RealityCheck CD product that lower cost alternatives are available that may offer the same performance adjustments to burned CDs. Do you put words into the mouths of your students at Texas A&M?

Lenin also believed this and, of course, it is the basis for communism.
Now, you're accusing me of being a communist? That's where this has gone?

I know this does not matter to you, and that you will continue harping that consumers are fools, a lament that many businessmen who tried to sell something that no one bought have often uttered.
I have never harped that consumers are fools...only consumers who do not do their due diligence. Actually, I consider consumers as a whole to be quite bright.

What else ya got?
Tvad, too many "mays" and "apparently" in your argument. No, I am not calling you a communist, but yours is the same argument Lenin used. How the hell you determine what is an appropriate price I don't know. No, I don't try putting words in my students' mouths, but I do hasten to point out the felicitous arguments and assumptions. So consumers who buy the RealityCheck are fools because you find they did not do their due diligence? Who made you the judge?

I suggest we just drop this useless posting.
No, I don't try putting words in my students' mouths, but I do hasten to point out the felicitous arguments and assumptions.
Thank you, Tbg. That's a nice compliment.

So consumers who buy the RealityCheck are fools because you find they did not do their due diligence?

In light of the recent information presented on AA, which points to the possibility of lower cost alternatives to the RealityCheck CD system, I believe it would be foolish for consumers not to do some thorough homework before spending their cash. You can't disagree with that, can you?

Who made you the judge?

Never claimed to be. Everyone is free to purchase what they want to purchase, but they should have all the information before making their purchase, shouldn't they?

What’s the problem, Tbg? I find your debates entertaining. While I’m admittedly one of the Show Me members of Audiogon, you have to be the Mikey of Audiogon. You’ll try anything.

BTW, I find sitting on Styrofoam cups increases strength in my glutes and hamstrings. Fabulous benefits while cycling in the hills. My lower torso Magic Conditioning Devices are available for $795/pair. Act now.
You say, "So consumers who buy the RealityCheck are fools because you find they did not do their due diligence? In light of the recent information presented on AA, which points to the possibility of lower cost alternatives to the RealityCheck CD system, I believe it would be foolish for consumers not to do some thorough homework before spending their cash. You can't disagree with that, can you?"

Where did I ever say they should not, but I deny your judgment that if they buy the RealityCheck they are fools.

End of my participation in this useless discussion.
Where did I ever say they should not, but I deny your judgment that if they buy the RealityCheck they are fools.
Tbg, you are putting words into my mouth again, and I cannot let it stand. I have reviewed every statement I made in this thread, and nowhere have I said that buyers of the RealityCheck CD kit are fools. If you can find the quote by me where this is stated, I will immediately offer an apology to you and the rest of RealityCheck CD system owners.

Fools buy into lucky rabbit’s feet, palm reading, magic crystals and other products that are based on pseudo science and nonsense.

If the science behind a device is real, the process can be repeated and the product can be reverse engineered and patented.

I don't know if that definition applies to the RealityCheck CD system. There's simply not enough real information available from Mr. Louis regarding "BetterBit Technology", "BetterBits for Better Sound", or "NanoBit Ultralog Reprocessing with Bezier Curve Re-Algorization" to make a determination, and that is the core of the issue as far as I'm concerned.
This thread dropped off suddenly. I suspect because no one else has gotten a unit. I am impatient to do the Nespa of the original before RealityCheck copying myself.
>>This thread dropped off suddenly<<

No surprise. There is no interest in this and/or the realitycheck.
Wrong as usual and equally irrelevant.
Stanhifi, there is so much interest in this device we are now 2-3 months in back-orders! (Germany ordered 200 units alone!)
Japan can't keep up with demand. 3 shipments are in route to the US, unfortunately these will fill a small part of the current need. Customers are still calling and ordering on a daily basis :-)
(Norm, your Nespa Pro will be in the next shipment)
Steve
SOS
Sksos, I thought there must be a substantial backlog of orders.

I have put off further copying using the RealityCheck until I have the Nespa to treat the originals. I know you don't think the RC is necessary, but I have got to hear it for myself.
Norm, It's not that I don't think the RC is necessary, I know it's a PITA, but it works, and it works in combination with the Nespa unit. Actually I have ordered a Cool Copy duplicator, have heard from George's beta-testers, this Cool-Copy dup is better than the original, we shall see (hear).
So I've now stopped making Black copied CDR's, instead I'm just using the Nespa unit BUT cleaning the CD 1st with this new cleaning fluid from Japan (from the makers of the Nespa) called Intron #8500 Protect. Best cleaning and CD treatment yet. I was told by many it was special but that was an understatement. Anyone else try this cleaning fluid?
Sksos,

Steve, what do you recommend 30, 60, or 120? Can you overdo a cd?

Thus far I have only treated sacds as they have lost favor with me after experiencing duplicators. In a word, wow!
Tbg, Have you had a chance to compare the Nespa and RC treatments? The cleaning fluid is another variable here. It would be interesting to compare "copying" with "zapping by light". So, to do an objective comparison, perhaps you can clean the CD and all CDRs with the same fluid and then compare as many of the following as your patience will allow: plain CD, Nespa, RC, Nespa followed by RC, RC followed by Nespa. I found Leec's comparisons very interesting, but I don't recall if he removed the cleaning fluid out of the equation by cleaning all discs first.
Puremusic, I do plan such comparisons, but there is also the CoolCopy duplicator. My life is also complicated by the fact that I just got an Esoteric X-01 limited ed.

Leec, if I recall correctly, never tried Nespa treating the original before duplicating.

Last evening I treated one sacd, which of course cannot be duplicated. I was shocked at the improvement. Once again I could listen to sacds. I should again point out that since I have a new player, I need to do a before and after test, which I did not do.
To answer some questions and concerns Norm. The way I did things in the past was to clean both the original CD and the Black CDR FIRST. Then I would Nespa the original CD. Now I'd make the copy (either with my previous RC machine but now with the improved Cool Copy unit) then after the dup was done I would Nespa the dup'ed copy. I've tried Nespa'ing the Black CDR before coping first but heard no differences, only hear great improvements AFTER the disc has been copied.
As for the settings, I've found the 30 or 60 selection just fine, the 120 I don't hear any further improvements. Japan tells me you cannot ruin a CD if you Nespa one 100 times, it's just a waste of time and energy.
Hope this helps.
Steve