" I do possess a couple of quite decent mains filters..."
Pluto, frankly I am shocked (!!!) but don't worry, your secret is safe with me !
"You state that you clean your CDs regularly and it always makes a difference".
No offence intended, actually I don't (clean them regularly). It is a one-off exercise with each one.
"You refer, in wonder, to the effect that your filters have in resolving the difficulties you attribute to poor room acoustics. I have to say, Bill, that you really are adding 2 and 2 and making 5."
I'll give you another example or 2 : A colleague bought a "filter" cable (3m long) of the type I still use for the tv (although I still use other filters on the same mains block) He was thrilled with it. He insisted on dividing it in 2 and reterminating it so that he could enjoy twice the benefit (although this would diminish it's effect slightly) We really have to get off this subject - I'm beginning to sound like a salesman. Also lent one of my old 2m 2-way distribution ones to another colleague who is a Martin Logan user. He has a Doctorate (electronics, antenna specialist). He refused to give it back so I sold it to him and bought a better one.
"fastidious cleanliness might keep things just the right side of the line. But I have to say that it's far more likely that this is yet another example of the placebo effect"
This is interesting. I've often asked myself the question regarding "Negative Placebo". If we, the Listeners, are naturally inclined to be "refractory" in our attitude to the product, does this mean we cannot hear a genuine improvement even where it exists? My experience has been to the contrary. The "silver fuse" I mentioned in a previous post is a prime example. Like (probably) everyone else in the Dem room there was no chance in hell of me ever buying a silver fuse or "believing" in one. I detest silver and the hype that surrounds it. It's resistivity is little different from bog-standard copper even on it's best day and in it's purest form. The German engineer who had helped design the accompanying CD player and Amplifier, who swapped the fuse didn't look quick enough for sleight of hand...and yet damn me forever to the depths of Purgatory.. I heard the difference - as did everyone else. This bugs me because I can offer no explanation...and answers were not very forthcoming from them (the makers) either...
It's slightly mind-blowing (pardon the pun) to think that every roomful of listeners throughout that weekend, every half-hour, may have had the same experience. This certainly challenges our pre-conceptions and gave me food for thought, but my attitude in this instance was not "disregard" but one of "what if..."
Assuming that everyone in that room was not a blatant liar or on hallucinogenic drugs. Assuming that the fuse was a straight swap with no other adjusments or tricks (as they alleged). Assuming there were no mechanical differences to ensure the tightness of the fuse, why did it appear to work. Common sense dictates it should not work. Negative Placebo clearly does not work! Next time I evaluate something I'm going to tell myself "This is going to be great ! Earth shattering!!"
In reply to Bill I have to reply to I would use the visual analogy of vinyl as "SupercinemaScope" while CD is merely a pale 4:3 cartoon, sorry don't understand that, now you are comparing an aspect ratio with a sound experience, the CD was developed out of the idea to improve on the vinal standards of the day, and for the most part it did that. it was never designed to be a cheap alternative, but always to be a better carrier. Now lets look at some of the reasons:-
A CD has no low frequency limit unlike the vinyl, there is no way vinyl can reproduce 10Hz.
A CD has no 'tracking distortion' unlike vinyl.
A CD has no 'inner/outer' track differences, as it changes speed to keep the reading constant, unlike vinyl.
A CD is largely immune to dust and scratches, unlike vinyl, and should last for years, unlike vinyl.
A CD is a largely a 'designer' system, unlike vinyl that was a 'developed' system dating back to the cylinder recordings of the 1910s.
Note although the CD is considered a digital system, and therefore has a defined dynamic range, one thinks of vinyl as completely analogue and therefore does not have such definitions, but it does, largely by pre-amp input noise, and more likely by it's own surface noise, the best dynamic range achievable on vinyl was probably 60-70dB, whereas on CD that is more like 80-95dB. OK a CD does have a top end cutoff at 20KHz wheres vinyl does not have such a cutoff, but be honest how many of us can hear 20KHz?
Note I do have vinyl playback, and I am surprised how similar many recordings are, and I have sometimes marveled at the 'warmth' of the vinyl rendition, but I do also realise that a little 'top cut' to the CD playback will sound just as 'warm' and just as analogue.
IMO the greatest change I have heard in Hi F over the past twenty years, since the CD revolution has come from amplifier changes, and that has not been through 'tweaking' or 'fine tuning' but by new topologies, class 'D' and 'T'
Thankfully back on the correct subject, the feedback I had on the Bedini CD Clarifier, from a Dealer friend of mine, is that he has demonstrated it to a number of clients who were pleased and impressed with the results. This unit appears similar to the Isotek in terms of it's objectives.
Once again I cannot endorse or verify any claim (simply because I've never heard it) but this is straight from the grapevine.
Static electricity is not a harmless effect. Whenever static occurs often 1000s of volts are involved at albeit trivial power levels. This is why electronic componentry packaging and PCBs come with anti-static warning labels and employees have to be earthed or simply don't handle semiconductor devices as destruction of the device may occur. None of this, even if of sufficient severity, can actually reach the devices in the CD player, but it's food for thought.
Acoustic Revive's RD-3 demagnetizer gives superlative results, immediately evident: a wider and deeper soundstage; greater precision, particularly noticeable on plucked bass notes; more realistic timbre of voices. Costs about £200 but an upgrade of this quality would cost five times as much.
Hi Bil - all / my apologies to Emlyn for not getting back to his reply.
This is a reply from Emlyn from page one - i have also been on other sites and seen similar replies to this subject - is my ears / brain letting me hear more than what is actually there ? who knows but the articles on this subject are all over the world and why apart from money are people making products for this very subject - do they wast their time and money on a theory? again who knows this brings to mind the saying " no smoke without fire. Carl ..
Note although the CD is considered a digital system, and therefore has a defined dynamic range, one thinks of vinyl as completely analogue and therefore does not have such definitions, but it does, largely by pre-amp input noise, and more likely by it's own surface noise, the best dynamic range achievable on vinyl was probably 60-70dB, whereas on CD that is more like 80-95dB. OK a CD does have a top end cutoff at 20KHz wheres vinyl does not have such a cutoff, but be honest how many of us can hear 20KHz?
FYI, SACD reaches 120dB and 100KHz and doesn't have the "cold" sound often noted on CD reproduction.
going of track a little this subject brings to mind a problem we had in work.- work - one of the largest motor mfr - i work in the metallurgy dept we had a large amount of particular a part returned totally irreparable internal parts had exploded i set about investigating by cutting parts, on the very first cut i noticed that swarf was not flowing away from parts - informed my boss that it probably was magnetized - all our parts are demagnetized before build. we tested the part with positive results compared parts taken off end of production line with returned parts, this confirmed returned parts to be magnetized - informed other plant of findings then they admitted that they had problems with a brackets that held the bad parts and that they had used an arc welder to resolve problem, One year later found out my manager had received a car for saving company million$???? not a fair world.
OK not a fair world, but I bet the parts were ferrous and magnetizable in the first place, unlike CDs, interesting as the story is, how does it help the dilemma of demagging CDs. Incidentally a couple of years ago I saw a similar unit for demagging ones vinyl collection and even a unit that could demag your copper interconnects. I just hope no one ever suggests demagging your speakers, that would get many in deep poo.
a few days ago emlyn left a note about one for compact disc's - but i thought he was talking about a demagnetizing cd he Quoted a price of £200 if he is reading this i apolagise for this. - sorry for boring you with story but it is typical of life - you live and learn - all the best - -carl.
First of all I would agree it's perfectly reasonable for you to hang on to your CD collection and not just gratify the unofficial 10 yr lifecycle that increasingly is imposed on us. (They tried to sneak in HDCD after about 10 yrs in the late 90s - I use the word sneak because CD was intended to be "perfect sound forever"...couldn't resist that!) . Of course dvd came into existence about then and as a first adopter I have a fair collection of dvds before they even managed to release any on R2 in the UK!
Yes much of what you say concurs with the Philips sales pitch at the intro of CD, John.
You mentioned little of listening though, and in this respect Charles has a point. Although Red Book CD is a refined medium (largely "packaging" related adjustments - digital & analogue filters etc - although I'm probably showing my ignorance here) it still had it's faults, denied at the time by Philips. SACD made a serious attempt to address that deficiency but it is interesting that it has been only reluctantly embraced by the public. Perhaps a natural rebellion along the lines of "I'm not replacing my Library again!" (Or cost may have been a factor?)
Vinyl is far more physically capable than people realise and lifespan is estimated to be at least 100 yrs (longer than I'll be playing them ) but when I look at the mechanical constituents of CD e.g. Dupont lacquer, I immediately think "discolouration and delamination". Maybe they won't. I hope so.
- I never, and have never, cleaned vinyl. (So no pixalls dustbugs et al) only concession is a Zerostat. The only tweaks I've entertained were the manufacturers own upgrades to the turntable e.g. spot welded subchassis, then glued subchassis, new PSU board, new springs, belts etc - which were always replaced gratis during any other upgrade.
- I always play vinyl exposed to open air with the lid off - albums always sound the same and play correctly. (By contrast I treat CDs incredibly carefully to avoid the slightest scratch, and keep them in the open air for as little as possible to avoid dust and hairs sticking to 'em)
- Vinyl is robust. On an occasion when I accidentally dropped a heavy metal hinge onto a disc I played it though expecting to hear the damage. There was no sonic sign that anything had happened to it, but dropping the same hinge onto a book from the same height resulted in several dents in the cover!!(The hinge fell off the dust cover when it was being removed BTW) Many albums have been played in excess of 3 or 4 hundred times and sound like new. In fact you'd think the band had setup in your lounge to make the recording there, the music is so fresh! Even the oldest recordings sound extraordinarily alive! Similar to discovering a decent quality tube amp and the "sonic holography" it is capable of. Obviously any impression of soundstaging is artificial in a stereo recording and a reflection of the Engineer's art - except for live recordings - but nevertheless...studio recordings are a real pleasure too.
- I've been trawling through 25 yr old unplayed albums recently (ones that sat on the "back shelf" unplayed because I was too busy playing all my favourites). Every one of them, although not the kind of stuff I normally listen to, is simply stunning. I was able to listen to unfamiliar music and be completely immersed in it with no desire to hit the "skip" button. Every album listened to in it's entirety, and consequently each unknown album has become a firm favourite! Inspired by one of the most recent ones, I bought a CD compilation with other unfamiliar tracks on it...Playing the CD I made it through the first track, although it was a real chore, by the second track I was off doing other things - no interest in pursuing it whatsoever. (So much for Red Book CD.) I remember a comment one person made in a recent "Stereophile US" survey "When Was the last time you Played Vinyl?", which stuck in my mind. He said "I would use Vinyl for serious istening, and CD for background and party music only"....I rest my case. This doesn't mean that I DON'T listen to CD at all, just that for the newest music we have no choice....continued...
Sorry for what was perhaps a poor analogy John. My CD replay system is not by any means the worst , (and the analogy was not a reference to stage width BTW which may have been misleading for some - because my CD replay still throws images up to 3ft beyond each speaker) but in my opinion it "kills" interest in the music - but only in comparison to Vinyl. This is only intended as a criticism of the technology, not of those who use it. Criticism of technology is quite common on this thread so I feel entitled now !!! Good to see that Charles is voting with his ears and his feet !!!
If the placebo effect/Emperors new clothes are such decisive factors, and all of us being the "suggestible" individuals that we are, then we must surely be delighted with CD ?
(Homer Simpson moment "Doh" I asked about EW because it looked like an official response.)
The reason I asked was that I was about to propose another "wildcard" i.e. Has anyone in the thread, while we've been debating wildly about the demagnetiser, proposed contacting Isotek to obtain a more detailed explanation of it's functionality and method ?
It's important to remind ourselves every now and then that Audio, in the final analysis, is all about listening to the Product.
Specifications and knowledge have their place but listening is most important of all. It is the end result and the very reason we pursue the ideal. Without it, they're just a bunch of shiny boxes.
Yes- labeling information! - That was what i was thinking - it was getting frustrating all that money upgrading system only to find that it only improved my old disc's sound slightly - was thinking about purchasing a vinyl deck because of disappointment? - if i knew about this problem it could have saved me a lot of time and money.
Will contact Isotec - good point.
poor Emlyn i thought he paid £200 for a disc - (i know what a wally )
on the case of old disc's - you mentioned life span - well my old disc's are that - old and older - is this food for thought?? Carl..
In his reply, John raised another interesting item about demagging. A couple of years ago Richard Black (Hifi Choice Journalist) released a "Refresher CD" which had a number of calibration routines, test items etc. One of the test signals was the "system demagnetiser" which claimed to be capable of "demagging all system components and terminals up to and including the loudspeakers".
Without going into the depths of the conversation I had with Richard, I simply pointed out that even if this signal were capable of achieving such an effect on components (which was highly unlikely) attempting to demagnetise the loudspeakers in particular was extremely inadvisable, since they require magnetism to operate.
Richard readily agreed, but in his defence, explained that he had obtained this software from a vendor and had "included it for curiosity value and completeness" sake only.
!
Acoustic Revive's RD-3 demagnetizer gives superlative results, immediately evident: a wider and deeper soundstage; greater precision, particularly noticeable on plucked bass notes; more realistic timbre of voices. Costs about £200 but an upgrade of this quality would cost five times as much. 
Carl ..
