Regarding RealityCheck's applicability to hard drive files, here's a quote from George Louis: I can add a hard drive (for an extra charge) to the duplicator for those who want to store many tracks and make many different compilations without re-duplicating the tracks by re-inserting the original discs each time. I feel that this degrades the sound a bit but it's still better than the original. It's just not as good as the direct digital-to-digital duplicating of an original disc to a CD-R. He doesn't explain why storing the data on a hard drive degrades the sound which leads to question along the line of whether just storing the data in a memory buffer also degrades the sound? It's not clear whether his proprietary processing is occurring as the data is read from the source disc or as it is written to the target disc, so it may or may not be possible to perform batch processing upon existing hard drive based files. If the product performs as he and other claim, then his marketing plan puzzles me. If it's really that big an advance in digital sound reproduction, then why is he marketing it directly to audiophiles, a vanishingly small population of the CD buying public. Wouldn't he be better off approaching the CD manufacturers and licensing his process? I imagine that there's more money to be made getting a fraction of a penny on every CD manufactured then there would be from selling his duplicator and CDRs to every know audiophile on the planet. |
Exlibris, I assume a rechargable battery supply. I would be very interested in what you find to be the differences. |
Kana813,
Thank you; I'll ask my technician to replace the stock power supply with a battery PS. |
...I'm simply protecting unknowing folks from shills pushing bogus and marginal products. Consider it a service from a concerned ombudsman. Thank you. I'll opt for self-service. |
Exlibris-
Yes, the high level of ripple noise from these supplies can increase jitter on the clock generators. Power supply noise can also effect the disk read functions. |
Kana813,
When you refer to "jitter" in the following statement,
"the unit is powered by a switch mode power supply. The noise level on these supplies can increase jitter in digital equipment"
are you referring to mechanical vibration or to clocking problems? |
Clio09, I expect that the technology will show up in other burners but that it is short lived. There is evidence that the benefits to the copied discs vanish when put on hard drives. I fully expect that we will see such massive storage of pcm files on hard drives to be the wave of the near future with most songs downloaded over the internet.
Perhaps there is a way to process pcm to yield results on hard drives. In the mean time, I will continue to add to my 50 plus cds that I have copied. It is such a pain to four times clean the original and blank discs and then burn a copy, but the benefits are substantial. Now the question on AA is whether L'art de Son or AudioTop are the better clearner of both the originals and blanks.
Today I am doing 10 copies, so I had better get to work. |
Tbg,
Your points are well taken. It does take more than hype to sell a product. Some have done quite well on the hype cycle while they were the darlings of the reviewers and consumers, only to quietly, or in a few cases, not so quietly disappear into the night.
True quality products will withstand the test or time IMO. Just out of curiosity I'll be tracking the Reality Checker and its technology as I'd like to see where it is a year from now, let alone 5 years from now. |
Clio09, I am not in any way dismissing LPs. Like you, my vinyl is staying and is still superior to any digital I have heard. My point was that there are occasional innovation that are a bust and others that prove worthy.
I tried the RS clock that looked identical to the EAU-1. It did not do anything that the EAU did, but I certainly would concede that the EAU's benefit was small. I still have both in my home.
I don't know what you mean by "brand name swapping."
I am open to other technologies, such as transferring to hard drives, but the jury is still out on them for me. Obviously, in my opinion the jury is in on the RealityCheck. My critics seem to think that I want everyone to follow my lead and buy what I like. Really, I don't care if anyone does, but I despise the notion that only through hype can innovative devises be sold. |
Tbg,
While opinion on the sonic quality of an LP record can be debated with each side having valid points, the LP record is still today a viable medium for music reproduction. Yes at one time it was a revolutionary concept, but over the years it has more than justified it's original hype IMO. My vinyl and analog set-up leaving my system anytime soon.
Now your second point is very valid (don't forget to throw Radio Shack into the mix). What makes this a bit more interesting is if you do same brand name swapping. Then I think you might really be on to something about the Reality Checker. |
|
>>he would initiate a post when he excited about something<<
Getting excited and calling something one of the most significant advancements in 40 years (or whatever the precise wording happens to be) is simply disingenouos. A clear thinking, rationale poster would set aside the "excitement" and be much more judicious in the choice of words. Unfortunately, this is not the first instance. For that very reason a clear thinking and rational reader will take his posts with trepidation and uncertainty. |
Clio09, once upon a time there was the LP record.
The Tice Clock was a worthless copy of the EAU-1 out of Iowa. |
Ah, I see now. Guess I'll keep my TT and SACD player ;)
No disrespect to the inventor of this product. I think he should be commended for coming up with a way to better redbook. |
For you doubters, why don't you simply order a unit from George, and listen with your own ears? I'm sure George would happily refund your money if after actually LISTENING to the unit, you still have the same pessamistic point-of-view. |
I guess I'll try one more time to get some clarification from a poster. Robm321: what do you mean by "overhyped"? That it doesn't meet your expectations (have you heard the results from an R Check copy? If not, I also don't understand "...so far it's really not"), everyone's expectations, the majority's? I expect a relatively small number have this duplicator at this point (by the way, I don't have one). I'm personally not going to make a decision about getting one until I have more input. And, if I DO get one (or have an opportunity to compare several originals and CD-Rs by others on my system), THEN I will offer my opinion about its merits. I'm realizing the main theme of my questions and posts recently has to do with opinions offered without any experience. I simply do not understand it. As for the fact that someone INITIATES a very positive comment about a product, therefore then making that product "overhyped": I don't think we'd get very far in learning about good new products if no one started such threads. Tbg obviously listens to a LOT of new products before others do, so it makes sense to me (and it seems like a gift) that he would initiate a post when he excited about something. |
Once upon a time there was the Tice Clock... |
>>is it overhyped?<<
Robm321
Please read posts from other threads by the initiator of this one regarding other products and it will be quite evident. Have fun. |
Oneprof,
But in the end the "clean money" would be worth the same as the dirty money.
So is it as good as SACD - vinyl? If so, this should be revolutionary, but so far it's really not. Is it just that people don't know, or is it overhyped? |
My vote goes for that Clever Lil clock, That has to be the best tweak in 40 years. Something about that orange dot. Just imagine what a clever Lil Mickey Mouse stop watch could do. |
Wc65mustang, I think your analogy is wrong--it would be like handing in old dirty money and get crisp clean dollars back, with that 'new money' smell. |
|
Maybe the engineer of this product will design an ATM machine that returns more money than deposited. Same principle isn't it? |
The review of it even mentioned that it brings out more tape noise, etc. My experience with the RealityCheckCDs that were made for me was just the opposite. My RealityCheckCD discs have less tape noise that the source discs. |
Onhwy61 - I was not sure why you used the word "claim", so I looked at the original post. I don't see the word there. My opinion is that the weather is nice where I live today. Obviously someone with different priorities might have a different opinion. If I "claimed" that it WAS a nice day, despite what the other person thought or felt, I can see why that person might be upset with me. In addition, I might think something to be one of the best 5 improvements. Another might consider something to be one of the best 500. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be pedantic or condescending. I just don't really see your point. |
Onhwy61, I do believe this, but I did add that it was my opinion.
It only works in copying a cd to a cd. VRS reports that they heard a clear difference between the original and RC copy I sent when playing them on a player. When they were both put on a hard drive, however, they heard no difference. I find this curious, but really do not fully understand why what is on a hard drive differs from what a player reads.
I guess if you were to burn a cd from a WAV and then reburn it on the RC, you might hear an improvement. |
Onhwy61 makes a great point. If you're going to throw out the fact that this escalates RB to LP or SACD quality or better. Then it's going to be a little hard to beleive. The review of it even mentioned that it brings out more tape noise, etc.
It's a very bold claim. Now it has to live up to it, and I'm not convinced at this point. We'll see when the dust settles. |
Tbg claims this product is "one (of) the greatest improvements in audio in 40 years". He's being disingenuous to think an over the top claims such as that won't be met with skepticism.
Does anybody know if this process works on computer files (WAV or AIFF) or does it only work on a physical CD? |
Exactly what is meant by those who use "endorsement" in this context? Is it that some people think Tbg (or anyone who is very enthusiastic about something)is making money off the product? If so, I imagine it might help others as well, if this was stated more clearly and explicitly. If the term means something else to others who use it, I would genuinely like to know what is meant.
FWIW, I value the differences of opinion that I read here. When posts are nasty and sarcastic I find them less credible. |
Everyone on these forums walks the line between enthusiasm and endorsement.
Unless someone is proven to be selling, or having received the product(s)in question for free or at some special accomodation pricing, let's give them the benefit of the doubt, that they're excited about what they hear, and ask questions to qualify the improvements they're reporting.
Attacking without first hand knowledge of the product's performance, IMO, should also be subject to both criticism and skepticism.
|
for such discussions I miss Sean. |
One needs only to read YOUR posts to make MY point. That is succinctly evident and indisputable by any rationale person. Thank you and very nice try. |
|
" I think you're (sic) comments far exceed enthusiasm. They border on endorsement and IMO are subject to both criticism and skepticism." I don't think your comment are either criticism or skepticism; they lack any evidence and represent mere poisoned cynicism. |
With regard to prior post, please forgive the poor grammar. "You're comments" should be "your comments". Everything else is correct.
Thank you to all. |
Unlike what Stanhifi suggests I have nothing to
gain in this other than to express my enthusiasm. I will also say that with
the exception of Tvad, many on AA share this opinion. To be clear, if one re-reads my post, one will see that I did notice some positive effects of the RealityCheckCD system. I also noticed some effects that were not to my liking. I did not universally pan the process. Also, I know of at least two folks who are ambivalent about the results after having heard some RealityCheckCDs . Sometimes, for whatever reason, people choose to not post less-than-enthusiastic impressions. One should not assume the lack of published critical opinions automatically translates to universal acceptance of a product. I simply reported what I observed, and I believe it contributed some balance to the story |
>>I have nothing to gain in this other than to express my enthusiasm<<
Enthusiasm and hyperbole are quite different. I think you're comments far exceed enthusiasm. They border on endorsement and IMO are subject to both criticism and skepticism. |
>>why no discussion on Audiogon. Is it because Stanhifi is not allowed to post there?<<
I am posting here. Are you on the same planet as the rest of us? |
All I can say is that this has been my experience. Unlike what Stanhifi suggests I have nothing to gain in this other than to express my enthusiasm. I will also say that with the exception of Tvad, many on AA share this opinion. As I first questioned in this thread, why no discussion on Audiogon. Is it because Stanhifi is not allowed to post there? |
With all due respect to his distractors, Stanhifi's skepticsm is not unjustified. Tbg has started a number of threads stating that quite a few products have made "major" improvements to his system and now he's touting "one the greatest improvements in audio in 40 years". It could all be true, but that's an awfully bold statement! |
In Scandinavia where the ombudsman originates, he or she is a salaried elected official for interfacing between the public and governmental agencies. Does any of this fit the piss-ant? |
Stanhifi has a valid point. It's apparent there are people who have posted here that are happy with the product and see value in it. That is fine as this forum is a way to share their experiences with others like myself who are curious and read the forum to learn. However, I can appreciate Stanhifi's comments, especially after seeing other products with a lot of promise turn out not to be what they appear, fail to deliver on their promise, or are just plain snake oil. As with anything buyers should beware and do their due diligence before purchasing. That is what I am reading from Stanhifi's comments. |
Stanhifi - have you even heard the unit in question on this thread? it is certainly a product open for debate for what it is/does...but not so far fetched as to be compared against $8000 isolation devices. its actually a reasonably priced product when compared against most of the other items debated in these threads. i'm leary of most "tweeks" myself but i try and keep an open mind and the process have been surprised a few times...this being one of them.
|
|
Tvad I'm simply protecting unknowing folks from shills pushing bogus and marginal products. Consider it a service from a concerned ombudsman. Thank you. |
Kana813, I did ask several people who know more about power supplies. I expect that a linear supply would not be a step forward, but only trying it would answer this definitively. Frankly, I do not have the wherewithal to do this. |
Stanhifi, your posts would be so much more interesting if you offered
something informative and germain to the topic based on actual
experience with the product, rather than issuing personal attacks levied
against participants in the thread.
What gives with you? |
Tbg- did you look at the PSU? |
Is this similiar to the doppler radar preamplifier, liquid cerarmic cables, and $8000 isolation bases that we've read so much about? What or who is the common thread among them? |
Different strokes for different folks, Tbg.
Vive la difference.
I don't own a single recording of a performance that I have also heard
live in the venue itself. In fact, most of the music I like has been
recorded in a studio rather than a concert hall, so I can't begin to
imagine what it sounded like in the venue. I understand the point you're
making, though.
I'm happy it works for you and has enhanced your listening experience.
|
Tvad,all that I can say with regard to the your finding of the lack of ambience and high frequency extension is that I find the RC give an edge to brass and a shean to high hat that I find very realistic. I also find a great sense of decay to the notes and more of a sense of real depth and location. Overall, I find the sound much more like the recording venue.
I have no clue why our results might differ, but I find I can no longer listen to other digital. |
A fellow Audiogon member was kind enough to offer to make RealityCheckCDs from a few of my redbook CDs. Last night, I listened to a RealityCheckCD copy of a friend's commercially produced progressive rock CD which is a nicely layered and sonically dense recording, although I've always considered it edgy and bright. The RealityCheckCD mitigated the digital edge and lent some naturalness to the music, however it also somehow affected the ambience and extension.
From a burned compilation CD I own of audiophile quality recordings, I compared Thomas Dolby's "I Scare Myself" to the RealityCheckCD version. The RealityCheckCD version defines the instruments and voice a bit more than the original burned CD, and the leading edge of the piano attack is softened a bit. I can see where this would be pleasing to some listeners. Overall, however, I find the RealityCheckCD, at least on this track, collapses the soundstage height and width and diminishes the layering somewhat. There is less ambience in the music, and micro details are reduced. For example, in the first 30 seconds of the track there is some brush work on a ride cymbal that is clearly defined on the standard burned CD. The RealityCheckCD version either pushes this cymbal work back in the mix or muddies it, I'm not sure which, but I suspect some tweaking in the frequency range where the attack of this sound originates, and I think this goes hand-in-hand with the loss of ambience in the recording. There is certainly a difference in the two recordings, but I'm not sure the effects of the RealityCheckCD process would be beneficial in all cases. I prefer the original version of this track, and it's a song I've been using for quite some time to evaluate equipment.
I noticed this also while listening to "Walking on the Moon" by the Yuri Honing Trio from the same compilation CD. The saxophone sounds more natural in the RealityCheckCD version, and much closer to what I remember my vinyl sounding many years ago. However, the music sounds like it's being performed in a closed, cloth-walled room without any circulating air.
So, the RealityCheckCD can make the music less digital and more natural, but to my ears, it also tweaks with a recording's extension and ambience to a degree that I find unsettling. |
Dear music loving audiophiles,
The cleaning and treatment instructions for ClearDisc and ClearBit have changed for the better, i.e. it's no longer neessary to wait 5 minutes after cleaning a disc with ClearDisc before treating it with ClearBit although it's still recommed that there be 5 minutes or more between two Clearbit treatments.
George S. Louis |
Dear music loving audiophiles,
At one time I offered to make and mail back the original disc and its RealityCheckCD counterpart for $5. I no longer have time to make sample RealityCheckCDs below their actual cost. To a company that's going to use RealityCheckCDs to demonstrate their high-end equipment the cost of the RealityCheckCDs is just another cost, such as a high-end power cord, of making their demonstrations the best they can be. If they get one new dealer or customer they've probably paid for several RealityCheckCDs and after that it's all profit. I don't hold a gun to heads of any high-end companies to force them to buy RealityCheckCDs. They know that the best equipment and best CD players can only take flawed source material so far. Also if they're not satisfied they may keep their original disc and its RealityCheckCD counterpart and receive a refund of $70 with no questions asked. And so far, I've never had a refund request.
George S. Louis |
