Rain-X as CD Enhancement Treatment

Hey Craig- Did you have any idea that posting your very successful experiments and results would bring these semi-deaf, nay-saying, untesting but highly opinionated termites out of the woodwork? =8^)

semi-deaf, nay-saying, untesting but highly opinionated termites out of the woodwork

Good one!

Craig has actually stumbled on a free clinic!!!

Eldartford, if you rip the same disc to a harddrive, once without the Millennium cd mat and once with it both using the same software and hardware (with Exact Copy reporting no errors and the same confidence) and then listen in the identical system and everyone "hears" a difference with probably 90% holding your view initially, is it logical to say there can be no difference?

I have had the same experience with discs painted with AVM and not, but various cleaning treatments seem to do nothing. I certainly would not claim to be expert in things digitial, but I do hear compressions degradation of sound even if it is supposedly loseless and I do hear differences in digital cables. I suspect strongly that "bits ain't bits."

I suspect strongly that "bits ain't bits."

That is where we differ in belief. After many years of "brainwashing" in computer science, time series analysis, physics, maths etc. - a lot of it in graduate school courses in signal processing. I have complete faith in digital. I trust it.

Although many implementations of digital to analog conversions do have problems and quality is variable - digital data is tremendously robust and as perfect as we want or design it to be. So a data bit can be preserved very accurately even if an individual "pit" on a CD may be a rather unreliable thing. It is miraculously black and white. You can copy digital stuff perfectly thousands of times. This is NOT becuase the analog storage devices are so good. In fact analog storage devices are rather inaccurate with an average hardrive/CD/DVD having many faults. The key is in the mathematics and data redundant overhead...digital allows us stick data through large polynomials etc. and generate a whole bunch of redundant data which is all related to the raw data. Think of a 3 x 3 matrix filled with numbers where you are also given the sum for each row and column (extra redundant data). You can lose information in the square or in the redundnat data and still reconstruct the entire square perfectly because you know that it is encoded with the relationship that the rows and columns add up to the extra redundant numbers stored along with the raw data.

All this information is written onto the analog media - the data AND the extra redundant information. The redundant information allows the software to mathematically reconstruct the data perfectly DESPITE plenty of imperfections in the media. The less perfect the media - the more redundant data you need in order to maintain perfect precision.

I understand why people are skeptical - that mathematics has such power to add incredible precision to our imprecise world is one of the technological marvels of this century. Everything relies on this - including your cellphone and your bank statements and not to mention everything you read on these forums.

Philosphically it presents a real challenge to our thinking. Digital is a very similar challenge akin to those who had to face the evidence that the earth was not actually flat. Everything we see day in and day out in our lives tells us the Earth is flat - it looks that way from our perspective! It is even diffiult today for us to conceptualize that people on the other side of this large ball do NOT fall off. All this goes completely against ALL our daily experiences and observations about what we see around us. Digital is the same. The incredible precision that comes through mathematics defies everything we know and observe about the ordinary world around us. Nothing we see or touch is ever as precise as the mathematical constructs used...even the CD itself is woefully imprecise as is anything we can manufacture...but it is the theoretical mathematical constructs that we use to store bits on a CD that makes the "DATA" it holds extremely precise.

Shadorne, yes, but how to you account for the differences in sound that I described? Please don't say we only think we heard them. The room at the RMAF was full of skeptics who only tolerated John Tucker doing this on his system. All muttered disbelief when they heard the difference and only John said he had to get one of those puppies. Several others, however, asked me in the hall where they might buy one.