[clarkjohnsen]

Turns out that the designer hisself very much likes the process -- although one of his dealers couldn't hear it.     Nevertheless, he is baited and taunted in typical internet fashion:

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/413170.html

The thread is long and still alive.

My own most recent article on the topic is found at:

http://positive-feedback.com/Issue22/cjdiaries.htm

clark

[JoshK]

The topic is pretty boring to me at least.  Too tweaky and too much effort to be an added enjoyment to the music listening process, but the exchange between Dr. Geddes and BC was a most intriguing read.

[gongos]

Just think, you can go to computer audio and avoid this entire discussion.

[clarkjohnsen]

Too tweaky and too much effort. quote]

But Lord, the improvement! Don't you want to hear it? And then demand it of your player?

clark

[kfr01]

Just think, you can go to computer audio and avoid this entire discussion.

I agree.  I'd rather spend time and money buying and listening to new music than trying out the cd player tweak of the week.

[Rob Babcock]

I've been curious about this since first reading about it maybe a year ago.   But didn't a group of AC'ers get together and try it out?  I was thinking the RealityCheck CD ended up being the worst sounding of the lot?

Still it's something I want to try for myself.

[JoshK]

Just think, you can go to computer audio and avoid this entire discussion.

I'm with you there.

[clarkjohnsen]

Just think, you can go to computer audio and avoid this entire discussion. :D

I agree.  I'd rather spend time and money buying and listening to new music than trying out the cd player tweak of the week.

Try tweak of the decade, pal.

It beats me why people should choose ignorance over bliss. And if "new music" is one's uppermost concern, what is one doing on an audio list?

Myself I enjoy music and the right practice of audio. Gents, they may be independent but they are not mutually exclusive!

Finally, what the Reality Check gives you is far better than what any computer has done in my experience.

clark

[clarkjohnsen]

  But didn't a group of AC'ers get together and try it out?  I was thinking the RealityCheck CD ended up being the worst sounding of the lot?

I'd sure like to hear about this!

clark

[gongos]

Try tweak of the decade, pal.

It beats me why people should choose ignorance over bliss. And if "new music" is one's uppermost concern, what is one doing on an audio list?

Myself I enjoy music and the right practice of audio. Gents, they may be independent but they are not mutually exclusive!

Finally, what the Reality Check gives you is far better than what any computer has done in my experience.

clark

Then your computer audio experience is probably lacking. The sound a computer using a external USB converter and a high end DAC reproduces is pretty damn amazing.

[Nick B]

I'm very likely going to switch to computer audio using the SB3. I'm assuming it would be of no value to use the RealityCheck and then use that CD for the harddrive? Wouldn't the EAC software likely give the same effect as RealityCheck in this situation? ?

[kfr01]

I'm very likely going to switch to computer audio using the SB3. I'm assuming it would be of no value to use the RealityCheck and then use that CD for the harddrive? Wouldn't the EAC software likely give the same effect as RealityCheck in this situation? ?

You are correct.  If you need more confirmation that your rip is accurate, try using Accurate Rip with EAC.  

http://www.accuraterip.com/

It is software that checks your rip against others and generates a confidence report of an error free rip.

RealityCheck can't get more accurate than error-free.

(edited to reflect Scott's suggestion).

[ScottMayo]

RealityCheck can't get any better than error-free.

That's unclear. It can't get more accurate than error free. But maybe accuracy is not the goal here. Maybe it reads the bits, applies some sort of algorithm - not correction, but some kind of smoothing or reshaping - and writes different bits in certain cases.

I agree that if it is just trying to copy bits, that copied bits are copied bits and nothing will improve. But there are people who claim it makes a difference. One way - in fact the only way - to do that is to muck with the bits themselves.

Anyone know if this thing even tries to make a bit-accurate copy?

[kfr01]

That's unclear. It can't get more accurate than error free.

lol... Correct you are.  I guess in my world best = bit accurate.  I alway forget that others may think differently.    My above post has been edited to reflect your correction.

[ctviggen]

According to http://positive-feedback.com/Issue16/RealityCheck.htm, he does this:

"What I do is somewhat different. I don't add any bits or oversample the data. I form the existing bits into better bits, hence the name BetterBit Technology™, or BetterBits for Better Sound™. I've further named the technology NanoBit Ultralog™ Reprocessing with Bezier Curve Re-Algorization™. I believe that the potential of Red Book CDs, when done right, is fine enough for the highest fidelity playback that the best systems are capable of. As presently realized, I don't feel that SACDs or DVD-As are the equal of Redbook CDs done right. I'm not willing to go into more detail at this time because I'm considering applying for patents."

Maybe he's looking at the resultant signal (of bits that are determined from the original disk) with Bezier Curves and then redoing the bits with "better" bits, i.e., bits that meet his curves or other metrics better.

[clarkjohnsen]

Then your computer audio experience is probably lacking. The sound a computer using a external USB converter and a high end DAC reproduces is pretty damn amazing.

Never said it wasn't amazing. But you, sir, are aparently unconversant with the Reality Check, so where does that leave your comparisons?

clark

[Rob Babcock]

  But didn't a group of AC'ers get together and try it out?  I was thinking the RealityCheck CD ended up being the worst sounding of the lot?

I'd sure like to hear about this!

clark

I'll have to try the search feature.  I might be remembering wrong, but I thought some AC'ers had a shootout of some gear and of various CD-Rs.  Don't quote me, but I think the common concencus was that the RCCD was the poorest of the lot.  Still, if memory serves they only had one or two of the RCCD's to compare.

Can anyone here help out?  If anyone reading this remembers the thread I'm talking about please chime in.

BTW, maybe people are tired of me saying this, but Eximius' DVD2One Audio Remaster drastically improves the sound of CDs, IMOHO.  I've seen demo discs to a couple of AC'ers, and overall I think they were favorably impressed...YMMV.

[clarkjohnsen]

Eximius' DVD2One Audio Remaster drastically improves the sound of CDs, IMOHO. I've seen demo discs to a couple of AC'ers, and overall I think they were favorably impressed.

I know a fellow, a very careful fellow, who says the RCCDs are way better than the Eximus results. FWIW

clark

[ScottMayo]

Maybe he's looking at the resultant signal (of bits that are determined from the original disk) with Bezier Curves and then redoing the bits with "better" bits, i.e., bits that meet his curves or other metrics better.

Well, that's easy enough to test. Throw a 1kHz square wave onto a CD and RC it. Square waves don't meet anyone's idea of a curve, and if they're changed even slightly they sound different.

I can attest that it didn't muck with Dire Straights at all. Dire Straights is already idealized, apparently.

[ctviggen]

How would you write a square wave to a CD?  I don't think a square wave fits into 44.1 kHz sampling.  (Although I don't have my EE texts here at home, a single square is a sinc() [=sin x/x] function in the frequency domain, so it has infinite frequency cmponents; I'd assume a square wave would be similar.)  You'd lose some information in order to put in onto the CD in Redbook format.  If you knew what you wrote to the CD, then you compare.