2. digital
  3. 1227242737

Rain-X as CD Enhancement Treatment

I have used the Auric Illuminator treatment on my CD collection for several years now. I am a believer in the AI, and repeated A/B tests of identical treated/untreated CDs bore out significant improvements after treatment with AI.

I ran out of the fluid and my marker dried out, so I was searching for mew treatments on the market before buying another AI kit or choosing something new. That's when I ran across this article by Greg Weaver at Soundstage, where he talks about having used Rain-X and a green marker(Staedtler Lumocolor 357, price about $3.00) as a treatment on his CDs to great effect.

http://www.soundstage.com/synergize/synergize200005.htm

Being the complete geek that I am, I had to try it for my self. I found the marker at Office Depot, and picked up a little bottle of Rain-X for $2.99. I treated a couple of CDs that I have ended up with duplicate copies of (Grant Green's Green Street, Frank Sinatra Sextet Live In Paris)and tested the Rain-X/marker treated vs. untreated disks.

Well, low and behold, the treated disks sounded notably improved; the music was clearer and louder, especially the midrange, the soundstage was larger with better definition and separation of instruments and the bass was tighter and deeper.

I can't say that the Rain-X treatment was or was not better sounding than the AI, but at the least very it is close, for a fraction of the price.

Has anyone else ever tried the Rain-X treatment?
craig_hoch
dgarretson
2,593 posts
 
Eldartfort, at a younger age I did indeed test the limit of a turbo-charged BMW motorcycle at max speed. Rain-X on a CD is safer & more suited to age and temperment today. Closer to the analogy of hifi, I have no doubt that the limbic system of a Road & Track and Motorcylist enthusiast is wired to make a purchase decision based in part on the tested maximum speed of a sports vehicle-- though the buyer will never use the vehicle at close to that maximum speed. There are bicylists who acquire Campagnolo's latest fibre gruppo for the tangible or intangible advantage of shaving several grams or of obtaining minute marginal improvements in aerodynamics at speed. Associations with performance & even the feint prospect of perfectionism is partly what drives audiophiles toward purchase of statement systems and little tweaks, apart from any interest in music or the real world. The obverse is someone like Shadorne defending his position by falling back on a tin ear or the muddiness of his Target system. Shadorne has obviously never owned a nice Ferrari Daytona or Lambo Miura with six Weber DCOE carbs: runs perfectly when tuned but not at all at other times. A highly transparent audio system can be similarly revealing.

You say you would pay $2.99 for a bottle of Rain-X because it could be used as intended on the car windshield in the event it fails to improve CDs. (1) In the absence of personal experience, why are you prepared to accept the claim that Rain-X is any more effective on a car than on a CD? (2) Why set a limit of $2.99 for a bottle of Rain-X? Why not $3.99 or $9.99, or any price up to full cost of a new transport that makes a difference equal to the improvement of Rain-X? (3) If the windshield wiper on your Mercedes were to break, would you spend $500 to repair the wipers, or $499.99 for a bottle of Rain-X?
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
Dgarretson...There is a line somewhere between enthusiasm and madness. You and I may draw that line differently. I would humbly suggest that testing the limit of a turbo-charged BMW motorcycle is over the top, and it appears that you have come to that view also.

But, I will do your RainX thing, and report my observations.
clio09
3,346 posts
 
I miss Sean's posts around here.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Everyone's comments on using Rain-X on car motivated me to use the now 2 year old Rain-X that I tried on my car windows.

I still maintain that a commitment to an existing theory of what explains observations that dismisses new observations is fundamentally unscientific.
rodman99999
6,033 posts
 
If everyone maintained a commitment to existing theories of what explains observations that dismissed new observations, there would be no further "science".
More to discover