New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Furutech PC-2 Disc Treatment - Page 2  

post #16 of 95
Thread Starter 
i'm a lawyer. you can't use semantics against me. i know what you meant and you know what you meant. don't try that "no one stated outright ..." crap with me.
post #17 of 95
No, really... It's true that I doubt the reviewer's claims, and from what I understand about the CD format, these solutions shouldn't work any better than water or a disc resurfacer, assuming that certain errors are caused by the laser refracting off of jagged plastic.

But, I'm still open to the possibility that a solution like this could improve the playback of a CD in certain situations. I just don't think that it will automatically improve every possible quality of a recording tenfold.

I'm more interested in the theory behind why this might work... There may be one, after all.
post #18 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcoheda View Post
what is there to save face over.

i never claimed it worked. i only said that i would try it and report my findings.
How are you going to check to see if it works? Are you going to try it on CD-Rs and do checksums to search for error rates? I'd be interested in hearing your results if you do that.

See ya
Steve
post #19 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitesymphony View Post
So far, no one in this thread has claimed outright that this particular product won't work at all.
I'll go out on a limb and venture that hypothesis. Let's see how well he does with his test. He'll have to take his fingers out of his ears to conduct it!

See ya
Steve
post #20 of 95
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
How are you going to check to see if it works? Are you going to try it on CD-Rs and do checksums to search for error rates? I'd be interested in hearing your results if you do that.
i plan to take a bunch of CDs that i am familiar with (5 or so) and make CDR copies of them in WAV format. listen to one track from untreated version. listen to same track with treated version. note any differences. repeat.

so i plan to test it just like i do all my other equipment- by listening to it. i know, a strange concept. people interested in the quality of music judging the music by actually listening to it. bizarre indeed.
post #21 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcoheda View Post
i plan to take a bunch of CDs that i am familiar with (5 or so) and make CDR copies of them in WAV format. listen to one track from untreated version. listen to same track with treated version. note any differences. repeat.

so i plan to test it just like i do all my other equipment- by listening to it. i know, a strange concept. people interested in the quality of music judging the music by actually listening to it. bizarre indeed.

Except burned CD's differ GREATLY in quality compared to pressed CD's.

Burned CD's have errors pressed CD's don't. Normally it is not a problem with error correction, but I don't think most audio CD players do that.

So you are already setting up your tests to be one sided. Whether or not you have done in consciously or not, I am unsure.
post #22 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by LawnGnome View Post
Except burned CD's differ GREATLY in quality compared to pressed CD's.

Burned CD's have errors pressed CD's don't. Normally it is not a problem with error correction, but I don't think most audio CD players do that.
Many people have said that the opposite is true. Their argument is that sometimes, manufacturers skimp on the quality of media and pressing equipment to save money, thus leading to discs with higher jitter during the manufacturing process. So theoretically, re-burning onto a known good CD-R with a well-tested drive is like jitter removal. Some people also believe that the color of the reflective layer makes a difference, and that the normal silver isn't the best.

Not necessarily what I believe... Just sayin'...
post #23 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitesymphony View Post
Many people have said that the opposite is true. Their argument is that sometimes, manufacturers skimp on the quality of media and pressing equipment to save money, thus leading to discs with higher jitter during the manufacturing process. So theoretically, re-burning onto a known good CD-R with a well-tested drive is like jitter removal. Some people also believe that the color of the reflective layer makes a difference, and that the normal silver isn't the best.

Not necessarily what I believe... Just sayin'...
If those people were smart and read into the technology, they would see just how wrong they are. I am always surprised by how little people research before making decisions.
post #24 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by LawnGnome View Post
Except burned CD's differ GREATLY in quality compared to pressed CD's.

Burned CD's have errors pressed CD's don't. Normally it is not a problem with error correction, but I don't think most audio CD players do that.

So you are already setting up your tests to be one sided. Whether or not you have done in consciously or not, I am unsure.
Strange thing is, lawngnome that most people report that good burners, like plextor sound better then a pressed cd because the pits are deeper and rectangular instead of convex.

There's also a disk shaver, that shaves a small amout of the rim off the cd. This will greatly balance the cd during playback and sounds better.
post #25 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitesymphony View Post
Many people have said that the opposite is true. Their argument is that sometimes, manufacturers skimp on the quality of media and pressing equipment to save money, thus leading to discs with higher jitter during the manufacturing process. So theoretically, re-burning onto a known good CD-R with a well-tested drive is like jitter removal. Some people also believe that the color of the reflective layer makes a difference, and that the normal silver isn't the best.

Not necessarily what I believe... Just sayin'...

True, gold disks are best for longterm archive. The best disk were kodak gold disks because they used real pigments in the black ink and thse ink is real black, not brown or something that looks like black.

I also heard that pressing equipment doesn't cut the pits straight and especially good burners burn straight pits, wich sounds better.

I will conduct a test myself and burn a golddisk on a plextor and compare to the original.
post #26 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by LawnGnome View Post
If those people were smart and read into the technology, they would see just how wrong they are. I am always surprised by how little people research before making decisions.

Some people just listen with their ears instead of their eyes.
post #27 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by tourmaline View Post
Strange thing is, lawngnome that most people report that good burners, like plextor sound better then a pressed cd because the pits are deeper and rectangular instead of convex.

There's also a disk shaver, that shaves a small amout of the rim off the cd. This will greatly balance the cd during playback and sounds better.
I don't care what people SAY they hear.

You can MEASURABLY find that burnt CD's have way more errors.

Do some damn research. You don't know a damn thing on the actual technology. If you did, you would know better.

http://www.digitalfaq.com/media/dvdmedia.htm
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA3...kK&output=html
(read for a few pages.)
(Notice the codes for most of the "audiophile" level CD-Rs's come from crappy chinese manufacturers.)

Quote:
Pressed media vs. recordable media

"Hollywood" doesn't burn media. "Real" discs are pressed metal, mechanically made media. The presses are precise. Burning is a sloppy method to recreate the process, using dyes that can have pits and grooves "burned" into the chemical, making an illusion of how a "real" disc would look and work. If you compare a pressed media and a burned media under a microscope, you can see that the pressed media is fairly precise, while the burns are fairly erratic, and it's almost a miracle that burning works at all.
From that site.
post #28 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by tourmaline View Post
True, gold disks are best for longterm archive. The best disk were kodak gold disks because they used real pigments in the black ink and thse ink is real black, not brown or something that looks like black.

I also heard that pressing equipment doesn't cut the pits straight and especially good burners burn straight pits, wich sounds better.

I will conduct a test myself and burn a golddisk on a plextor and compare to the original.
i'll be waiting for the results!
post #29 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcoheda View Post
i'm open to trying things. i'm not interested in theories. i'm interested in actual experiences. was the reviewer of stereotimes just wholesale lying or did he imagine everything. i've read a lot of positive reviews from many people about these CD enhancer fluids. are they all lying/delusional.
Well, I do hope it makes a difference for you. I had a lot of snide and sarcastic comments about how some or all of the Christians/Jews/Muslins/Hindus/atheists/fluid-believers (take your pick) must either be lying or delusional, but that wouldn't have helped the thread any.

So, if nothing else, hey, free bump.
post #30 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinp6301 View Post
i'll be waiting for the results!
I am curious too, actually. We'll see what happens.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
This thread is locked