Burning speed depends mostly on your burner and it's condition. This is not a single speed for all burners! If you stick to burning at low speeds with newer burners good luck. This has been discussed ad nausea in forums at CDfreaks.
Usually each burner has a sweet spot burn speed for CDRs, based on numerous burner tests to be a couple of notches below your burners highest write speed.
Seems there are really 2 issues regarding media quality and they are both tied to the burner and player used together.
Archival Media - combination of substrate reflective layer, the dyes quality, and usually an extra top sided protective coating.
Mostly both dyes types will degrade over time relative to heat and/or UV. The reflective layer can corrode if exposed to contaminates in the air dirt, pollution, etc
Media Bit Error Rate - mostly depends on disc manufacturing quality control. The burner used and the speed burned.
IMO the best media would be an archival type disk that can burned on your best burner with the fewest errors. Within a particular brand this will change from time to time depending on the actual disk manufacturing plant used and can even vary day-by-day depending on QC etc.
1) Get the best "name brand" disk take it home and use Nero Tools to determine the manufacturing code. Then search CDfreaks for up to date test results. see http://club.cdfreaks.com/f33/
2) Next take a blank disk and run Nero Speed Tool, this checks the relative heath of your burner to the media.
http://www.cdspeed2000.com/download.html
3) Burn the actual data or WAV files and check for errors using Nero Tools.
4) Then as a crosscheck use EAC to rip the burned disk looking for errors.
Usually each burner has a sweet spot burn speed for CDRs, based on numerous burner tests to be a couple of notches below your burners highest write speed.
Seems there are really 2 issues regarding media quality and they are both tied to the burner and player used together.
Archival Media - combination of substrate reflective layer, the dyes quality, and usually an extra top sided protective coating.
Mostly both dyes types will degrade over time relative to heat and/or UV. The reflective layer can corrode if exposed to contaminates in the air dirt, pollution, etc
Media Bit Error Rate - mostly depends on disc manufacturing quality control. The burner used and the speed burned.
IMO the best media would be an archival type disk that can burned on your best burner with the fewest errors. Within a particular brand this will change from time to time depending on the actual disk manufacturing plant used and can even vary day-by-day depending on QC etc.
1) Get the best "name brand" disk take it home and use Nero Tools to determine the manufacturing code. Then search CDfreaks for up to date test results. see http://club.cdfreaks.com/f33/
2) Next take a blank disk and run Nero Speed Tool, this checks the relative heath of your burner to the media.
http://www.cdspeed2000.com/download.html
3) Burn the actual data or WAV files and check for errors using Nero Tools.
4) Then as a crosscheck use EAC to rip the burned disk looking for errors.
"And it was Philips that developed the CD."
That is conveniently ignoring the fact that commercial CDs are not "burned". They are stamped from glass masters.
Philips and Sony did not originally develop CD players to play
recordable media.
Early CDs often used to develop "pin holes" in the reflective layer due to the inks used in the label printing at the time.
SandyK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD_manufacturing
That is conveniently ignoring the fact that commercial CDs are not "burned". They are stamped from glass masters.
Philips and Sony did not originally develop CD players to play
recordable media.
Early CDs often used to develop "pin holes" in the reflective layer due to the inks used in the label printing at the time.
SandyK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD_manufacturing
I have to eat my words and apoligize. After spending some time at
cdfreaks.com: for audio on cd-r (playable in standard cd players), different media and burners produce different rates of c1 and c2 errors, c1 errors are correctable but c2 errors are not. there is software thats lets you test these error rates on your burns. I have no idea how many c2 errors you get on average media, but it depends alot on your burner. On good media and a good burner zero c2 errors look pretty standard. But it also looks like some of the cheaper (FUJI?) media was good? Needs further investigating at cdfreaks
cdfreaks.com: for audio on cd-r (playable in standard cd players), different media and burners produce different rates of c1 and c2 errors, c1 errors are correctable but c2 errors are not. there is software thats lets you test these error rates on your burns. I have no idea how many c2 errors you get on average media, but it depends alot on your burner. On good media and a good burner zero c2 errors look pretty standard. But it also looks like some of the cheaper (FUJI?) media was good? Needs further investigating at cdfreaks
Mooly said:
Has anyone actually tried this that I mentioned at the start. Forget data errors and all that stuff. Look at the analogue signal on a 'scope coming from the RF amp in ANY CD player playing a CDR and compare it to a commercial disc.
That tells you more than you would believe. You may find that many of your CDR's burnt at slow speeds ( or vice versa ) are on the edge of what is even readable. Try it. Look for clarity in the "diamond" shape of the signal, whether it is crushes at the peaks, and for any obvious jitter. Compare the amplitudes too.
Interesting isn't it ? I find Philips and particularly Sony give the best results. The Philips on 16 times an the Sony on 20 times ( the max my notebook drive will write ) give the best RF signal.
I tried a Philips at the slowest speed and that gives the worst result by far. The lower part of the signal is very crushed -- still playable though with no audible errors.
I tried a Philips at the slowest speed and that gives the worst result by far. The lower part of the signal is very crushed -- still playable though with no audible errors.
Agree with mooly, Ive hunted for the best sounding CD R by comparing with listening tests between original disk and cdr, listening for any losses in detail or added noise wich most often is in high frequency spectrum. Ive ried about 30 disks.
The best Ive found is the Sony CD R, I think they call it Supremas, which are quite cheap too. Got best results with 16x. Phillips were pretty good too, TDK left much to be desired even the most costly so called high quality ones.
The best Ive found is the Sony CD R, I think they call it Supremas, which are quite cheap too. Got best results with 16x. Phillips were pretty good too, TDK left much to be desired even the most costly so called high quality ones.
> There is no jitter in reading or burning process
Actually there is (pit/land irregularities, rotation speed variation, etc) but as long as the data is readable it shouldn't matter because there is always a FIFO. That's what you meant I presume. But sometimes it does. Like when the audio DAC's clock comes from a fat ASIC which handles everything else in the CDP, well, this clock will be polluted by many things including this...
There is something quite funny, in that audiophool magazines and "critics" will
- praise a DAC for being "more transparent" when it can "resolve differences between digital cables", while in fact the truth is that this means the gear in question has no jitter rejection therefore all the trash gets directly into the signal, so yeah you can hear it...
- praise a Transport/CDP for being "more transparent" when it can "resolve differences between digital media", while in fact the truth is that the unit has improper design...
...a really good DAC/player would sound excellent on all types of cables/media...
Actually there is (pit/land irregularities, rotation speed variation, etc) but as long as the data is readable it shouldn't matter because there is always a FIFO. That's what you meant I presume. But sometimes it does. Like when the audio DAC's clock comes from a fat ASIC which handles everything else in the CDP, well, this clock will be polluted by many things including this...
There is something quite funny, in that audiophool magazines and "critics" will
- praise a DAC for being "more transparent" when it can "resolve differences between digital cables", while in fact the truth is that this means the gear in question has no jitter rejection therefore all the trash gets directly into the signal, so yeah you can hear it...
- praise a Transport/CDP for being "more transparent" when it can "resolve differences between digital media", while in fact the truth is that the unit has improper design...
...a really good DAC/player would sound excellent on all types of cables/media...
tubenut said:
How is that even remotely possible? If I copy file A.wav from CD to hardisk I will *always* get exact copy, unless the CD is faulty. CD is not analog or lossy format.
There are errors on digital reproduction but definitely not at the content-reading section.
Choosing CDR quality should be based on build quality and longetivity, not sound quality!
... now what USB DISK CABLE would give the best sound quality?
fredex said:
Just wanted to clear the air a little, these conversations always seem to drift over to hard data errors on CD's are causing what people "hear".
I think it was Bob Gendron that presented an AES talk on being able to see jitter patterns in data off of a CD after writing on the back with a black magic marker. So obviously something is going on, but I just don't buy the thousands of interpolated bytes per minute argument.
This is very interesting thread!
Like all of us , I also tried to find" "the best sounding software for burning Cd's, and the best media for music CD-R" and I am not so happy with this.(Searching for about 5 years)
I tried and burned even Audio CD-R(for audio use only) into Cd-Rom in my PC(LG -Cd Rom), cheap one and this type of media can be burned at lower speed (x 4) which is not case of the most other normal data CD-R 's(x 8 ).
Found that Audio CD-R(for music use only) when is burned on My Pc burner , and I played them on Marantz cd67SE sound sharper, and sometimes very bad even for 1 minute listening.
I also have some audio CD-R's recorded on Philips CD recorder and I think is much better than burned on a PC (audio or normal data CD-R's.)
Nobody mention audio cd recorders, so I would like to hear some thoughts about this: AUDIO CD RECORDERS VS. COMPUTER CD-R OR DVD BURNERS
PS:
Wonder what is coming next for music storage, maybe even worst as now!
Like all of us , I also tried to find" "the best sounding software for burning Cd's, and the best media for music CD-R" and I am not so happy with this.(Searching for about 5 years)
I tried and burned even Audio CD-R(for audio use only) into Cd-Rom in my PC(LG -Cd Rom), cheap one and this type of media can be burned at lower speed (x 4) which is not case of the most other normal data CD-R 's(x 8 ).
Found that Audio CD-R(for music use only) when is burned on My Pc burner , and I played them on Marantz cd67SE sound sharper, and sometimes very bad even for 1 minute listening.
I also have some audio CD-R's recorded on Philips CD recorder and I think is much better than burned on a PC (audio or normal data CD-R's.)
Nobody mention audio cd recorders, so I would like to hear some thoughts about this: AUDIO CD RECORDERS VS. COMPUTER CD-R OR DVD BURNERS
PS:
Wonder what is coming next for music storage, maybe even worst as now!
zoranaudio said:
I also have some audio CD-R's recorded on Philips CD recorder and I think is much better than burned on a PC (audio or normal data CD-R's.)
Nobody mention audio cd recorders, so I would like to hear some thoughts about this: AUDIO CD RECORDERS VS. COMPUTER CD-R OR DVD BURNERS
PS:
Wonder what is coming next for music storage, maybe even worst as now!
I've used a Phillips unit for years no problems. A friend has gone through three, the first two froze up after less than 10 burns.
Nobody mention audio cd recorders, so I would like to hear some thoughts about this: AUDIO CD RECORDERS VS. COMPUTER CD-R OR DVD BURNERS
PS:Wonder what is coming next for music storage, maybe even worst as now! [/B]
Re dedicated Audio CD recorders = old technology with outdated expensive slow speed media (getting harder to find new sources of hardware and software for these). Maybe the older players like these type disks a little more than 52x CDRs?
Newer and IMO better burners and their burned disk performance seems to go hand in hand with latest high speed media. Also your players drives and firmware need to keep up with the burnable CDR media technolgies.
Dual hard disk drives seems the best solution right now. Or even other solutions that businesses use to safeguard their data. But internet firms that specialize in data backup may go bellyup with your data tho. Co-location of drives and/or media is something to think of as well.
Newer solid state RAM drives are coming to market now with no moving parts. But these would need dual drives, as well as battery backups which can be their achilles heel.
For alot of info go to cdfreaks.com and search c1 errors. From what Ive filtered out of there:
new drives and media have less errors at higher speeds (thats what there designed for(make sure you look at the date of the post))
different burners "like" different media and speeds (gets pretty complicated to make a list of best media/burner)
audio CDs (redbook) use less error corection than data CDs, wave files are data files (you cant compare the 2)
CDs dont cause jitter; the data is put in a buffer which is clocked electronically, the CD read speed is adjusted to keep the buffer half full The electronics can have jitter.
true, but since its digital these dont matter untill you reach a threshold and start loosing more bits than the correction can keep up with, then you start getting c2 errors and the interpolation starts ('guesing"), this starts to become audible.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.