CD Tweeks...Improve Ripped SQ?


Hi All,

I'm seriously considering coming over to the geek side of music playback. :-}

All of my shinny polycarbonate and aluminum platters have had CD treatment done to them.

The process I use is:
1) Optrix Cleaner
2) Audio Desk CD Lathe with black edge marker
3) Nespa Pro 30sec treatment
4) Acoustic Revive RD-3 Demagnetize

So the big question is...

Does a treated ripped CD sound better than an untreated ripped CD?

Anyone A/B a standard CD to a treated CD after ripped to a hard drive?

Thanks,
128x128rodge827
While it's possible that some fault with the system is producing some effects. However, the problem with the theory of mysterious intervention is that results of treating CDs by coloring, demagnetizing, reducing static fields, using cleaners and optical enhancers, etc. - including treating them before ripping - are repeatable for systems of different types and different manufactures. One can cling to the bits is bits theory only so long in the face of 100% or more improvement to the sound. There is a red line between the uber skeptics and the experimentalists.
There is a red line between the uber skeptics and the experimentalists.
I would put it that there is a broad spectrum between the uber skeptics and the experimentalists. It is not simply a matter of being at one extreme or the other.

Also, Geoff, although you appear to realize it, let me emphasize that I do not dispute the effects that CD treatments can have on sound quality, when the CD is being played. I do, however, strongly question any claims that treatment before ripping will make any difference when a computer file is being played, assuming that the ripping software assures bit perfect accuracy. They are two completely different situations, and I would not lump them together under the "bits is bits theory."

Regards,
-- Al
"assuming that the ripping software assures bit perfect accuracy. "

That's an optional setting and not a guarantee on some ripping programs, so its possible that read errors could come into play, depending on the implementation of the ripping software.

Even in that case though, I would seek out a rip program that does assure bit perfect accuracy as the best solution. Then, its just a matter of how long the rip takes. Rips with more error reads from disk will take longer to re-read, so any improvement to the physical disc reading system might help produce faster rips perhaps, how much faster depending on disc quality and how well the optical disk reader does its thing. With most decent modern commercial grade optical disc readers, I find only CDs that are visibly in very bad shape (like some from the library) or physically defective in some other way rip significantly slower when bit perfect accuracy is in play, but of course YMMV.
The same reasons why treated CDs sound better than untreated CDs apply to why ripped files produced by treated CDs sound better than ripped files produced by untreated CDs. This is precisely why I say the bits is bits argument doesn't hold water. Ditto for the argument that ripping treated CDs can't work since perfect bits can be guaranteed. That's actually the same argument used for thirty years to try to dismiss treating CDs in the first place. Reed Solomon codes and laser servo mechanism and all that jazz.
09-10-13: Geoffkait
The same reasons why treated CDs sound better than untreated CDs apply to why ripped files produced by treated CDs sound better than ripped files produced by untreated CDs.
I disagree completely. Let's leave it at that, s'il vous plaît.

Regards,
-- Al