Vivid: Great or snake oil?

[Dessayfan]

OK - I've been using Vivid CD Enhancer from Walker Audio for a month now, and have found it to be absolutely wonderful. BUT
I wonder if any of you have used it - and what your reaction is to what it does to CDs and DVDs.

 

[Unregistered]

Pure snake oil. Here is a quote of its magic properties: 'Vivid is called an "enhancer" because it does much more than clean the discs. It contains a cleaning agent, optical enhancer and de-static properties.'.

There is nothing a liquid can do to enhance the optics - that is a function of the cd/dvd player. There is practically zero static build-up on a cd, just as there are no magnetic fields (which other products claim to eliminate). Even if there were a static charge or minute magnetic fields, it will not interfere with the laser's ability to read the disc whatsoever.

As a 'cleaning' agent it may be useful, but no more than using water and $5 micro-fiber cleaning cloth you can buy at Best Buy.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

"unregistered" has listed cogent reasons why the product is snake oil; a basic understanding of how CDs work vs. the claims made for the product is all one needs to decide the product is bogus. And you asked the question, right?

Bits is bits. They can't be "optically enhanced". Nothing you apply to a CD can do anything except gunk it up and cause gross errors like clicking. Static charges (if at all present) on the disc do not affect the laser or any other part of the player.

Keep them clean and don't scratch them. Period.

 

[Unregistered]

Rip has clarified my comments perfectly. No, I haven't tried it and never will; nor will I buy a volume knob made of the finest wood on the planet.

If you are technically inclined, read the bible on digital audio: Principles of Digital Audio, 4th ed. by Ken Pohlman. Then it will be quite obvious why these products are of no value.

 

[JoeE SP9]

When I was teaching one of my students came to me with a CD that had been written on with indelible ink on the read side. She wondered why it didn't work. After a quick lesson about which side of a CD actually gets played I took it home to see what I could do. I pulled out a package called "micromesh". It is a cleaning refinishing system for aircraft windshields and windows. With the micromesh I was able to remove the indelible ink and re-finish the surface and make the cd playable. This is the only time I have or would use any thing on the surface of a CD. I take reasonable care of them (old vinyl habit) and normally use only a soft cloth to wipe away fingerprints. I do own a Nitty Gritty Digital Disk Cleaner but I rarely if ever use it.

 

[Mudcat]

When Lexan gets near superglue (cynoacrylic) it fogs up. That micromesh in 12000 grit is about the only thing you can use that will make the lexan transparent again. I use it all the time with some fine polish for the windshields of model cars (yeah I still build, uhhhh if only to blow them up. Yeah thats it). Guess I can use it on my CD too.

 

[Unregistered]

My dad used to bring that micromesh stuff home from the airlines. It is essentially a super fine sandpaper (4000 grit or greater) plus a polish. Works great to remove scratches from glass.

I can see using that kind of thing to remove fine scratches to restore a cd, but no magic potion is going to make the cd sound better as is the claim of so many products.

I wonder if your student was actually trying the 'tweak' of outlining the edges of the cd with a green marker. Yet another ridiculous idea. There is no way a little ink is going to interfere with a 780nm laser.

 

[mtrycrafts]

- have you actually tried the product? It's very easy to say "snake oil" if all you've done is to read the label.

Have you tried homeopathic medicines? How about holistic healing? Or, talked with Sylvia Brouwn about your dealy departed relatives? Consult an astrology table? No? Why not?
Kicked a concrete football? Put your hand on a burner to check how hot it really is? Jump off of building or any number of other nonsense?

No, we don't have to try every consumer product to know if it is bs or it has merit to even try.

Perhaps you can explain what it does that makes it work? What needs improving about the laser penetrating the plastic and reading the pits and lands? Intensity matters? Maybe the lands are misread?

Maybe the algorythm has correction built in? Maybe if it is beyond correction it will not emmit sound? Do you know what is going on in a CD? Why do you trust someone trying to sell you a product?

 

[Unregistered]

I have tested this product myself. My wife (whose hearing is much better than mine) has tested it as well. In double-blind testing both of us were able to hear significant differences in sound between untreated and treated CDs - and the DVD video discs we treated gave us much cleaner and brighter pictures.
Now, snake oil it may be, but it works for us, for whatever reason. On the eCoustics forum, several people have used it, with equally fine results.
Perhaps Pledge will work just as well (some have suggested it, and a couple of people are at this moment testing it) but I am rather pleasantly surprised at what Vivid has done for my CDs.
I am a retired news reporter, who takes great pains to make sure anything I say is backed up. Can I "prove" to you that it works? Well, probably not without sending you pairs of treated and untreated discs.
You might tune in the forum on eCoustics>Home Audio>Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks - and scroll back a few days to find the on-going debate on Vivid. A man who is notorious for his skeptcism has just received a supply of Vivid, and will be reporting on his testing late this week. It might be of interest to you, who flatly deny that such a product workis.
Please note that I am not trying to sell this product, but I am interested in making listening to music as enjoyable as possible. I have e-mailed Lloyd Walker several times, and have each time received a reasoned response to my questions.
What I hope for is to find some people who have actually put Vivid to the test themselves - and then handed down their personal review of the product. I fully understand why those of you who have been quick to post negative comments would do so, as there have, as you know, been hundreds of useless products foisted upon the naive buying public.
Thank you all for responding - I respect your views, even though they differ from my own testing and listening.

Respecting personal views is not something that is often practiced in this forum, expecially when such views run counter to the technical myopia of so-called pundits here. These people do not understand the impetus of the hobby - achieving personal sonic nirvana and the enjoyment that goes with it. If, as what you say, you and your wife experienced better sonics after using the product you mentioned, then good for you, your enjoyment is all that matters in the pursuits of this hobby.

The people lampooning your claims are better off enjoying their technical books in their laboratories. Not the hobby. You are quite right. They have the gall to quesiton your claim when they don't even bother to own and test them. Just as they would lampoon owners of Wilson Audo and Mark Levinsons when they themselves can't afford one, armed only with a statistical DBT that says $300 receivers sound the same as $10,000 amps. And this cleaning agent doesn't even cost an arm. I wish those cleaning fluids were available where I live. Trying them out and finding for myself if they work is what makes this hobby fun, unpredictable and exciting.

AV_PHILE

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

As I have pointed out before, moderators have the same right to express half-baked opinions as anyone else! And we, moderators and members alike, are an opinionated bunch.

When you solicit opinions you have to accept the possibility that they will differ from yours.

 

[Unregistered]

Do I understand how CDs work? Yes. And I also understand that bits and pits and planes themselves cannot be changed by OPTICAL enhancements. But at the point of laser-read, all is analog, not digital - and it is my understanding that anything that impedes light path can measurably change the information sent to the ADC unit.
Sorry - but in this case I believe the folks who rely on the Digital Audio handbooks are doing themselves a disfavor.

The laser reads analog? No, you don't have the slightest idea how cd works. Maybe you shouldn't discount engineering text books. The only thing that can seriously degrade the sound of a cd is a large horizontal scratch about 1mm in depth. The player will do its best to correct that but is sometimes unsucessful in that case.

But, hey if you think the stuff works, by all means buy it. Its people like you that keep those companies in business.

 

[BuddTX]

I remember reading a long time ago in either Stereo Review or Audio Magazine that . . .

"for some reason" putting Armor All on a CD seemed to make the CD play "louder".

It was a while ago, does anyone else remember this?

 

[mtrycrafts]

When I said (probably a little imprecise) that the laser read analog, I meant that the physical properties of the CD are analog - just as the grooves in an LP are analog. You cannot "see" digital - but you can see the physical manifestations of the recorded properties in the pits and planes - that's analog.

Huh? How so?

These are nothing more than blocks, up or down, representation of zero and one. Nothing analog about it. Nothing contiouous about it. Furthermore, these lands and pits are scrambled on the CD in packets, Reed-Soloomon encoding for protection of data. Nothing continuous about it as a vinyl you compare it to.

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=cd.htm&url=http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/CE/kuhn/cdaudio2/95x7.htm


http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cd1.htm

Now - to be sure there are many error-correction circuits built into a typical CD player - however, anything that either adds to or detracts from a clear reading of those pits and planes by the laser will add to the work of the CD player, and possibly create a degradation in sound quality.

Absolutely not. If, there are error, the correction protocols will correct them, or if it is gross, extremely rare, it will not read them or interpret them and no signal occurs. There is no inbetween, little bit this and degrades sound. Doesn't happen.


Mold release compound, minute imperfections in the poly disc coating, and yes, scratches - all will have an impact on the laser light's in-and-out pathway.

It will affect its ability to read and track that will show up as a no signal or corrected and pass signal. No in between, a little bit different. Doesn't happen.

Clean a window - you see more clearly.

Laser will most likely pass through?
Clean a compace disc - the laser reads more accurately.

Absolutely false. It read it or it doesn't, period.


So - if Vivid cleans off "scum" and levels out the disc surface it would seem that this will produce a more accurate reading of the disc.

If there is no problem before application, there is nothing to correct. Simple and facts.


This is what Vivid claims - an optical, not digital improvement. You all are quite correct that the digital path is not "enhanced" by this product - but the laser carrier of these pulses can certainly be polluted, with results that degrade the overall sound quality.

Absolute nonsense.


Some of you say you "clean" your CDs - with what? And does that cleaning surely remove the mold release compound,

Why are you so hung up on this mold release compound?
The laser will read it, pass on a signal, or it will not read and you will hear nothing. Simple. No in between.
Soap and water will do just nicely if your CD has tracking problems.

If physical problems did not effect the laser, why then do fingerprints and scratches?

Depends on the magnitude of the defect. Magazines have CD test discs what size of scrathc the player can read. And, some players read bigger scratches than others.


It is all a matter of degree, to my way of thinking.

Yes, and, if it produces sound, you don't have a problem. There is no in between.


Again - think analog, or physical properties, not digital 1s and 0s when contemplating an "enhancement."

Perhaps that is your problem trying to use an invalid thought process.

If you totally disregard my argument, then you must also disregard sound degradation with fingerprints or smudges.

Wrong!!! One doesn't follow the other. It read the smudge, or it doesn't, no in between. A yes, or a no process. Very digital in fact.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I have been severely criticized for my viewpoint - and I accept that.

Criticized or just argued and discussed with you about your points and other points?


What confounds me, however, is that NONE of the detractors has used the product.

Why does any thinking person have to? One can analyze the claims and the product, knowing about where it is applied and claimed benefits, it is a silly argument that this must be done.

So, I cannot comment and counter Sylvia Browns, nonsensical psychic reading? I must sit down and have a reading first?


Nor have they produced any valid evidence of why it does not work,

Actually, the burden is on the maker, if he claimed anything that is testable.
Second, it has been explained to you why it doesn't work as claimed, or in any other way. You don't have to accept those explanations. Your perogative.





Subjectivity is a main component of the HiFi hobby -

It is part of it, not the main component. But, these claims are testable in an objective manner and the claimant for the product has no evidence. Simple.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I wonder if your student was actually trying the 'tweak' of outlining the edges of the cd with a green marker. Yet another ridiculous idea. There is no way a little ink is going to interfere with a 780nm laser.

The polycarbonate changes the wavelength inside the CD to green wavelength because of its property. Besides, Fred Davis did an experiment, published in The Boston Audio Society Speaker, a number of years ago where he fludded and flashed the CD with powerful lasers of the same length to mistrack, ir alter the signals. Nothing happened to the reading of the CD, not affected.
Plus, the way the laser pickup is set up and for the signal ot read zero, a cancellation of the beam must occur that can happen only from a reflection straight back from the surface, not from the sides, AND, it must be exactely the right phase to cancel and interpret that cancellation as a value.
Hence, nothing from the sides can affect the value or the reading.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Well, it's been a long night. After leaving the forum last night, I went through all of your arguments - and decided to go "back to school" to learn as much as I could about CDs in a too-short amount of time. My schooling continues.

Great. At least we pushed you to expand your horizons


In reviewing my comments, it would seem that my arguments regarding laser reading should have been stated this way: "at the point of laser-read, we are dealing with optical, not electronic, properties. It would seem to me that any degradation of the optical path might lead to eventual audio problems - more likely on analog, not digital path, and most having to do with jitter, which I learn is more of a problem than believed by most people.

NO!!!. A degradation must be large enough for the optical path not to detect the data layer. Agan, there is no in between, there is no fractianl quality of reading the pits that will affect the analog output. That is why digital storage is so robust. You need gread problems, not small ones as playing a vinyl.
Jitter? You need to get factual references and information. It is not a problem, contrary to what some self appointed gurus may claim.


Articles by Jon Risch and others have been very informative!

NO!!! That is the last audiophile to listen to. His history is very long on the internet. His BS is vast. His voodoo, urban legends are unparalleled. He has nothign factual to offer except speculations what migh or may be. He has been so discredited that it is not worht the time reading his posts anymore.
Please expand you rhorizons beyong him, for your own sake.


I have e-mailed several electronics experts - but so far have only heard from one - and that on one of your assertions that laser light is transformed into GREEN light in the polycarbonate layer. Not true, says he, then goes on at length about velocity and frequency of light. He promises some written badckup from others - and when he sends them, I'll post links.

Who is he? Polycarbonate has an index of refraction of 1.55 that affects the red beam by that amount which shifts down to the green spectrum.

From this link, a few paras down :

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=cd.htm&url=http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/CE/kuhn/cdaudio2/95x7.htm


"Each pit is approximately 0.5 microns wide and 0.83 microns to 3.56 microns long. (Remember that the wavelength of green light is approximately 0.5 micron) Each track is separated from the next track by 1.6 microns. "


Why do you think they want you to remember the wavelength of green light is .5 micron?

Furhter down in that link:

"The polycarbonate itself is part of the optical system for reading the pits. The index of refraction of air is 1.0 while the index of refraction of the polycarbonate is 1.55. Laser light incident on the polycarbonate surface will be refracted at a greater angle into the surface. Thus, the original incident spot of around 800 microns (entering the polycarbonate) will be focused down to about 1.7 microns (at the metal surface). This is a major win, as it minimizes the effects of dust and scratches on the surface. "


Next para:

"The laser used for the CD player is typically an AlGaAs laser diode with a wavelength in air of 780 nm. (Near infrared -- your vision cuts out at about 720 nm). The wavelength inside the polycarbonate is a factor of n=1.55 smaller -- or about 500 nm"

Actually, there are too many relevant paragraphs below this one. Better read the linc carefully. The .5 micron is imprtant as you will see, for interference destruction


Also - here's a quote from a big-time skeptic on the eCoustics forum - who apparently was sent a free sample of Vivid by another forum member, and then used to test the product as well as Pledge.
snipped
His name, by the way, is Jan Vigne, and you can read more of the give-and-take on eCoustics>home theater forum>home audio>teaching an old dog new tricks (thread).


How do we know him other than a poster at that link? Is he a plant?
Did he do a DBT comparison? I seriously doubt it. Ask him!!!
Oh, this glorious waxing about the property of that snake is not evidence for anything.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Gentlemen: please refer to the link below for more discussion on lasers becoming "green" in CD polycarbonate.

http://www.audioasylum.com/scripts/t.pl?f=tweaks&m=27724

OK. The wavelength still changes to that of green light, 500nm.
That link has the same source I linked to, apperently

It is still that wavelength.
Besides, for the ligth to be affected, if you read the link, the signal has to be perfectly out of phase with the signal going in. This cannot happen with any other signal than th eones that are reflected perfectly up, not coming in from the sides.

 

[mtrycrafts]

And then there are these questions - to which I would like to hear answers by all of you who argue so well against my viewpoints.

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/tweaks/messages/27625.html

Nothing to ponder. One only has to look at the source of the information, Joh Risch, the biggest bs grinder on the net. Discredited to the nth degree on most things audio. He is good on room acoustic treatment. Kind or limited.

If you are really interested in learning about digital audio, a great book to read:

"Principles of Digital Audio," Ken C. Pohlmann, McGraw Hill.

The cost is a good expenditure to further ones digital audio knowledge.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

I was going to stay out of this after my last post, but since our poster seems to be honestly desirous of information after all I'll expand on something mtrycrafts pointed out about digital vs. analog:

Unlike analog, the manifestations of digital errors tend to be gross and unmistakable; like clicking, skipping, or really bad distortion. Small, routine errors, like the laser missing an occasional pit due to a piece of dust or the like, are seamlessly and inaudibly handled by built-in error correction algorithms. The kinds of comparatively subtle enhancements or degradations audiophiles listen for and judge quality by are purely analog phenomena, characteristic of analog components like amps and speakers (and vinyl for that matter). If they were to happen anywhere in a CDP it woudn't be at the laser pickup; it would be at the digital-to-analog conversion (DAC) stage. But contrary to myth those are all pretty much transparent these days.

It's just like your computer. Small digital errors happen all the time but your screen still looks the same: colors don't get more or less vivid, text doesn't get fuzzy, and everything works as you are accustomed. Until the data gets truly corrupted. Then you get gross errors like major slowdowns and crashes.

 

[JoeE SP9]

I wonder if your student was actually trying the 'tweak' of outlining the edges of the cd with a green marker. Yet another ridiculous idea. There is no way a little ink is going to interfere with a 780nm laser.

She wrote her name in large print!