DCC Archive tweaks

I'm wondering what people on this board think of certain so-called tweaks? Personally, I think the practitioners are insane, or at least gullible, and give legitimate changes that make real sonic differences a bad name. But don't let me try to influence your thinking : )

I just read, for instance, about sanding the edges of CDs and painting the clear parts black. Nothing new there--essentially the green pen deal from years ago. Then I read there's a place that freeze-treats CDs to make them sound better. And there are those who swear by demagnetizing CDs. And there's the rainbow foil to stick on CDs to counteract bad vibes from them being unnatural.

 

Paul, you must have been over to Audioasylum. I used to think there was no truth to these types of claims either. Then when I decided to get a good system, I checked out PS Audio's stuff to clean up the power. It made a huge difference. Then I upgraded my cable and interconnects from generic crap to Alphacore Goertz stuff. That also made a huge difference. Then I had the parts in my amp and disc machine upgraded and got rid of my stock power cords to try several aftermarket brands, eventually settling on the Electraglide Fatmans. All this resulted in another huge improvement. I haven't tried disc treatment, but I have heard audible differences before and after demag. . .

What I'm trying to say is you need to walk a mile in the shoes of the people who are taking the time to carefully listen to the effects of these things. You need to actually do the requisite listening and assure yourself there really is no difference before you wave it off is my point. I certainly haven't done that listening and it doesn't seem like you have either. If you don't want to waste your time on it, that's fine, but you can't, in good faith, judge those who do. Audio is a nutty hobby and science doesn't explain everything about it yet. What's the saying? Judge not lest ye be judged?

 

Try speaking lovey to your CD player. Blow it kisses, call it honey. Soundstage comes to life!

Yeah, keep away from the "green marker" nutbags over there. There are great tweeks to be had, but very rarely is it something like freezing Cds. My CDs freeze all the time in the car, sitting in the magazine overnight. When I turn the heat on in the car, and the CDs suddenly defrost, they don't sound so hot. In fact, they're so frosty, it takes 10 min for them to defrost from slight moisture in the air.

 

You won't get any SACD sound through the digital out at all. If there is a digital out on the SACD machine, it will give you only the standard CD material. The SACD sound comes out only through analog outs.

 

Paul's right. You don't want to use an external DAC on a SACD player. 1st of all, they use incompatible digital formats (DSD vs. PCM). It would be like playing a PAL recorded VHS casette on a NTSC player. Plus, even if the format were converted, it would be like down-sampling as the most comparable PCM dicretization is 192kHz/24bit which isn't available on an external unit.

If you choose to get into tweaks & an upsampler & 96kHz/24bit, then I'd recommend a Shakti:OnLine for the digital line. I don't find it all that useful on an analog interconnect for which it was designed, but on the digital line it removes tons of hash. Although, some people have been listening to CDs so long that they don't recognize the difference until they remove the OnLine since they tune out the digital . Then, it is never removed again as liquidity is restored.

Also, other tweaks I recommend for CD players are roller bearings for isolation devices as they put increased air & distinction between instruments. Choirs become a group of individuals as opposed to a single conglomerate amalgamation of voices. The same goes for orchestras.

FWIW, I like Auric:Illuminator CD treatment with the black marker. It's almost like some reverb smear were removed. The sound tightens up.

 

It's sad on the wallet but better parts/wires/cones/most of this crazy stuff does seem to improve extracting higher detailed music reproduction. I've heard terrible systems and top-notch stuff. Distortion seems to be the big offender. Anything that causes or increases it clouds the resolution. A lot of these "tweaks" tackle system weaknesses at different offending points. Anything that can allow the transmission of signal with the least amount of coloring (transparent) will only represent the source in it's purest manner. It costs $$$ to achieve that (precision anythings costs $$$). That's why we choose our compromises in our lesser or greater systems (nothing's perfect but you can always push to get closer to it). What do we all hear? Why does Technics or Bose sell many units (marketing/cost/insanity)?? Tweaks are just considerations to optimize playback (even cleaing your ears helps or turning off the AC). Some are obvious and some are not. Maybe windsheild wipers on cars were a simple tweak developed by a driving fanatic to keep the glass clear and then it became a norm to the less obsessed? High quality power plugs/conditioners make sense (I live in NYC and the AC is very dirty/in one of my previous apartments I could see on the TV every time a neighbor switched on a microwave or vacuum cleaner). Give some tweaks a chance. A few years ago I opened up my Panasonic Superflat TV (voiding the warrantly) to cut the SVM wire (the circuit added tons of unwarranted sharness/noise to the picture because Panasonic considers it's customers blind) and after a few other settings (using NTSC test patterns and some color filters) my picture looks very, very good. Why did I tweak the set rather than use the default settings? I did it because default settings are created to make the picture "jump out" at a customer from other TV's in a badly lit showroom (the contrast/white level is usually sooo high and may damage tube prematurely). Anyway, tweaks can be great (just think them through before executing the daring ones like removing the foil from the protective plastic of a CD to improve the reading ability of the laser)...

Todd

 

I've used the green pen and it only seemed to help some of my harsher CDs. I've also placed a magic brick on top of my CD player and sorbethane feet underneath - both helped soundstaging. I tried plugging my CD player into my powerline conditioner, but detail and soundstage are much better with it plugged directly into an outlet. The best CD tweak I know of is to leave your CD player turned on all the time.

 

Sckott sez:
>> Yeah, keep away from the "green marker" nutbags over there. There are great tweeks to be had, but very rarely is it something like freezing Cds. <<

So after I just got through saying that you should do requisite listening before ridiculing these tweekers (some of whom are highly respected audio engineers like Ric Schultz who designs his own DACs and Jenifer Crock of JENNA labs), you have to let go with the "nutbags" comment, eh Sckott? I assume you've taken the time to listen to these tweaks then, and found no audible effect? Oh here's your "requisite listening":

>> My CDs freeze all the time in the car, sitting in the magazine overnight. When I turn the heat on in the car, and the CDs suddenly defrost, they don't sound so hot. In fact, they're so frosty, it takes 10 min for them to defrost from slight moisture in the air. <<

With all due respect, there is a little more to it than that. There is a specific protocol in the cryo process you can probably learn about by calling JENA labs at 503-639-7551. I would think it would take a comparison between two copies of the same disc, one treated and one untreated, listening using a system that has a lower noise floor than the heat blowing out of dashboard vents and the tires rumbling on the road.

Gary sez:
>> GregM: What did you have done to your disc machine? <<

I had 46 of the Sony stock parts--resistors and capacitors--swapped out for a carefully selected assortment of Vishay resistors and MIT, REL, and Black Gate caps. I also had the solder points resoldered around the scd-1 display as there were some bad connections there and the display was flickering and going out.

>> I have a digital out in my HK HDCD player. I wonder (does anyone know) if I can somehow incorporate a D/A converter with SACD? That way I can play HDCDs and SACDs! <<

You can absolutely use an HDCD DAC with the Sony units, but as was explained by someone above, there is no digital out for the DSD signal. I'm thrilled with the CD performance on the scd-1 and the SACD performance is the real deal.

Mart sez:
>> Also, other tweaks I recommend for CD players are roller bearings for isolation devices as they put increased air & distinction between instruments. <<

Great point, Mart. I use the Aurios media isolation bearings under the SCD-1 and I was blown away by the improvement.

 

Ouch. Well Greg, I won't throw mud, but I do not agree with "strange" tactics at all, and occasionally, you're going to find people who go to extremes to try anything, and they end up ruining their music doing it. I'm not saying you imparticular. There are people who WOULD start marking up their Cds with a green marker especially if they're daring and they've heard this trick the first time. BUT, it's not my Cd, so hey...

If you're changing caps and resistors in any circut for the better, that's another thing, which I will agree with by virtue of what better parts do. If you're good with a soldering iron and have good electronic knowledge, that's a tweek, and I'm sure it's effective, even if the difference might be slight-to-drastic.

All due respect back, but once some nut says "dipping them in Pateuli oil makes em sound better" I laugh for a few, and enjoy them comedic value only. I'm real sorry, but I crack up. There's chasing audio nirvana, and then there's "hunting for wabbits".

My listening time is best spent in the home. I don't go unarmed audiowize when I'm driving though, but that's another story

I love Audioasylum, but this hobby does have its witch doctors. A grain of salt usually keeps ya safe...

 

I use those bearings as well. BION, I use them under a CAL:CL-10. I also use Marigo:Crossbow CD mats which do more of the same.

If I had a SCD-1, I'd snag Marigo's thickest CD mat ... because I notice the difference in clarity between the Marigo thinness DVD mat versus the thicker CD version. I find it resonable to extrapolate that resolution increases with mat thickness. I was tempted to buy the expensive ones myself but as you probably know my player is a carousel. Buying 5 SOTA mats for a CD changer seemed quite ridiculous even to me. However, on a SACD player that plays only one disc at a time at a blazing bit rate, the potential for possible further improvement would warrant (nay demand) a SOTA mat for a SOTA format. Anyway, these Marigo mats are half the cost of the Aurio:MIBs. You'll like it. Anyway, it's just more of the same as the mat arrests the disc from vibrating from eccentricity & annoying impulses from changes in RPM. If you also have the Ultra-Systems: Audio-Desk-Systeme, you know what I mean.

 

Some really cheap tweaks.
Randy W. mentioned about using the "Magic brick" and getting results. Too bad he didn't know that anything heavy placed on top of the cd player ie. a cassette deck or even a real brick will create the exact same results it's called frame stabalization.
Remember those digital timers that Radio Shack or LLoyds created back in the mid to late 80's where you plug something into the adapter that plugs in the wall? Try pluging your line-conditioner or one component into that and hear the difference, much cleaner than just your line-conditioner! I didn't believe this one until I tried it and for the$20. it was quite well worth it.

 

Frame stabilization huh? Makes sense. What about "case" stabilization? Lay a thick mixture of construction adhesive and lead shot on the interior surfaces of the case shell.

 

Some people have actually poured concrete into the cd player chassis right below the electronics and disc transport.

 

Interesting. If I wanted to do something like that I would try a more shock absorbant material. Imagine if some areas seperated from, or did not bond properly to the cement. Crazy. Kind of absurd although I'm not saying it isn't effective. I'm glad I have other hobbies.

[ November 12, 2001: Message edited by: pigmode ]

 

My college yearbook serves this purpose.

 

Andrew,
And I bet it didn't cost a hundred $ either! And, you didn't have to go wabbit hunting either. Ah..ha ha ha

[ November 12, 2001: Message edited by: Dave ]

 

Hey everybody, this was supposed to be an ANTI-tweak thread. I don't believe in any of these things mentioned.

Now I realize that some tweaks are more suspect than others. If someone stands to make several hundred dollars profit by selling something dubious, that's one thing. If it's something free, like putting each component in a sandbox, then there is something else at work.

I think human beings are remarkably influenced by the power of suggestion. Also, if one is going to say that measurements aren't everything, no one in the world is going to be able to tell you that something doesn't sound better to you.

Okay, here is my favorite tweak, and it is absolutely free. Turn out the lights. I have tried this experiment numerous times, and I always perceive the music to instantly became louder and more focused. Turn the switch back on, and the apparent volume drops and the music retreats. Seriously, try it.

 

Or you can just close your eyes and your other senses will only be amplified as well.
I don't know Paul.?. You mean to tell me that you don't believe that if you take better parts you're going to get a better component? Hmmm. I tend not to agree because electronic parts can be measured as to their efficiency and consistantcy otherwise we would all be listening to our 1968 pocket transistor radios parts ie. resistors,caps etc. in our audiophile equip.
Agreed that some things sound kind of bizarre but hey, I won't judge until I've heard ie. green pen etc.
Have you ever tried anything in the way of tweeks youself? If not you can believe anything you want as it's still a free country, at least it was the last time I checked, but until you do it's just speculation.
Personally I don't feel that Steve and DCC would be using "a Wadia D/A conv. tweaked out to the maximum" if the "tweaks" didn't work.
You're ears will never lie to you!

[ November 12, 2001: Message edited by: Dave ]

 

Here's the thing: Not all tweaks are equal, just because they all use the same term.

Perhaps looking at other fields might help. A professional swimmer might shave off all of his body hair to lower resistance in the water. And he might swim better after doing so. Now how much of that improvement was because there was less weight slowing him down, and less hair dragging against the water, and how much of it was due because he got himself psyched up and performed better?

I won't go into any other fields because I'm sure we can all think of lots of comparable examples.

Let's take electricity. I can understand that a conditioner could help. I use one myself. But I don't see how a several hundred power cord could help. Nor several hundred dollar outlets, and those are sold too. Because what about the electricity coming out of your wall? What about changing all the breakers in your fuse box? What about changing the supply line in? What about going back to the electric company's transformers? How, with that big chain of unknowns, and many miles of wire, could changing three feet of wire matter? Unless your power cord was cleaning it up somehow, and I can't imagine how that could be happening.

I don't think I said that changing normal audio parts and pieces doesn't have an effect. But I don't consider New Age crystals in that league. There are people who swear by crystals. There are people who swear by magnets. Now what the heck is going to change on a CD if it is demagnetized? Can it even be magnetized in the first place? I just can't take that seriously.

 

Interesting discussion. I think both sides are right, i.e.: some tweaks do make a difference and some are a bit far out.

Paul makes some really good points. One being the number of 'unknowns' out there. I've always thought of any recording as setting a big chain of entropy in motion. Even if you read Laura Dearborn's book, she says (I'm paraphrasing) "Yeah, you should have good capacitors in your equipment, but they won't make up for all the series of bad capacitors that signal has gone through just to make the recording." The idea obviously being to 'un-record' the the recording as well as you can for playback.

I used to be amused when I would read about concern over the water distillation process used in record cleaning solution. That, IMO, is going a bit far. I'm all for preserving LPs and have my own arsenal of Disc Doctor, LAST stylus cleaner, Hunt and Audioquest brushes, etc. But when I play a 30+ year old Stones LP, nothing is going to change the quality of the original pressing, the number of people who handled that LP over the years and blew their bong water all over it, or the fact that it may been played on a console system with 15 quarters stacked on the headshell.

There is no doubt in my mind that things are frequently out of control on AA. I have an ART DI/O I use as a DAC and you will about 10k posts on this little sub $200 unit. People slap on a $30 power supply, short the inputs and outputs that aren't in use, remove the tube, ground the chassis, spend $200 on new cables from boldercables.com, etc etc etc. I couldn't fathom spending that much on it.

The other consideration for me personally, is staying true to the original design. For example, I restored/modified an AR turntable a couple of years ago. If you were to add all of the mods from George Merrill for an AR, you would wind up replacing the inner/outer platter, the subchassis, the motor, the springs, and more. What's left that is still an AR turntable? The base and the logo, maybe.

 

Paul, you seem to have no problem deciding which tweaks work and which don't even though you've obviously investigated the effects of very few! You then seem to have no problem deciding which people are being fooled by their own expectations. Why focus on others and explain what they hear? Why not focus on yourself and explain what you hear?! If you've tried these tweaks and you didn't hear an improvement--fine. I'd have no problem with that. But instead, you think you have all the answers--everything from green markers to aftermarket power cords. Has it occurred to you that there is a relationship between the wavelength of green and the wavelength of the laser required to read CDs? Or that the conductors and shielding used in aftermarket power cords play a big role in the amount of RF and other garbage picked up by your system, which corrupts the signal?

>> Perhaps looking at other fields might help. A professional swimmer. . . <<

What you're describing is "experimenter expectancy effects". Pure psychology. This same explanation has been used ad nauseum by people who have never heard SACD to tell me that I am wrong in preferring SACD over CD. Isn't it fun to have people who have never listened telling you what you hear?! Let's not bring in psychology and swimmers and make this totally irrelevant to audio.

>> Because what about the electricity coming out of your wall? What about changing all the breakers in your fuse box? What about changing the supply line in? What about going back to the electric company's transformers? How, with that big chain of unknowns, and many miles of wire, could changing three feet of wire matter? <<

The electricity and wiring going from your wall to your gear is the most critical for optimal system performance. This is the area most susceptible to picking up RF and other airborne garbage where it can mess up the signal. It is also the area where there can be a bottleneck in your systems ability to suck watts.

>> Unless your power cord was cleaning it up somehow, and I can't imagine how that could be happening. <<

You don't have to imagine anything--that's the beauty of it! Just do the requisite listening. PS Audio's products are available for 30-day trials. Instead of being a doubting thomas you can be an informed consumer.

>> Now what the heck is going to change on a CD if it is demagnetized? <<

Demag discs don't demagnetize a CD--they demag and reduce static buildup in your system. A disc spinning the same way in a system with parts prone to pick up magnetic and static electrical charges can create problems for an audio system. I'm not claiming to have all the answers, but there are enough unknowns to pick up a demag disc for $20 and check it out. I have heard these have an enormous effect on my friend's system--very UNexpected.

>> Can it even be magnetized in the first place? I just can't take that seriously. <<

I rather like VAC's motto: "Listen and let the sound be your guide." As opposed to "don't listen and let your ego be your guide".

[ November 12, 2001: Message edited by: GregM ]

 

So why doesn't expectancy apply? Let's say you A/B SACD and CD and you're expecting to hear an improvement in the former over the latter. This would lead to bias, no? Unless you were unaware (blind) as to which format was A and which was B.

 

Don't start 'em talking about that crap over here too!

 

Patrick sez:
>> So why doesn't expectancy apply? Let's say you A/B SACD and CD and you're expecting to hear an improvement in the former over the latter. This would lead to bias, no? Unless you were unaware (blind) as to which format was A and which was B. <<

First of all, audio and music are SUBJECTIVE realms, fraught with personal preference. If you can't trust yourself to determine superior audio quality when you hear it, you might want to choose a different hobby--I don't mean that as glib. You're welcome to torment yourself to blind testing in a silly attempt to make an objective determination, but it's still subjective--you've just added a layer of complexity that compromises your true preference. There is no way to remove bias--we all live with it and rightfully so. We admit it exists and use our ears and judge sound just the same. C'est la vie.

When you go down the slippery slope of experimenter expectancy effects, you quickly realize that a "blind" test does not solve anything. You must make it double blind. But wait, can't the expectations of the experimenter be so powerful as to taint the design of the comparison, biasing it toward whatever result s/he wants, even through a double-blind protocol? The fact is, with something as subjective as audio, you are never going to be rid of experimenter expectancy effects, so just sit down, listen to a variety of SACDs and corresponding CDs (or treated vs untreated CDs, or stock cords vs aftermarket cords) for a few weeks and make the subjective determination.

A good rule of thumb is to take other people's opinions at face value, especially when your opinions aren't based on your listening experience. It's fine to say you've done the listening and you came to a different conclusion. It's not fine to say "I doubt it--you didn't hear that. You're just imagining it."