Perfect In, Garbage Out
I have tried copying an original audio cd to a 'black' cdr disc (black looking disc just like an original playstation game disc) and I reckon it sounds a little calmer than the original on my cd players.
Peter, I have heard a multi-track master tape of a local high profile band in three modes.
Mixed down to two tracks through the desk and fed to monitors and at the same time fed to a PC cd-burner and a dat recorder.
Neither of the copies had much of the life and air of the live mix down, with the dat copy coming in third place.
This was most illuminating (and disturbing) to hear the differences and damage that digital recording record/playback does WRT the original multitrack.
Missing was microdynamics, life, air and pleasant and extended highs.
Eric.
I have tried copying an original audio cd to a 'black' cdr disc (black looking disc just like an original playstation game disc) and I reckon it sounds a little calmer than the original on my cd players.
Peter, I have heard a multi-track master tape of a local high profile band in three modes.
Mixed down to two tracks through the desk and fed to monitors and at the same time fed to a PC cd-burner and a dat recorder.
Neither of the copies had much of the life and air of the live mix down, with the dat copy coming in third place.
This was most illuminating (and disturbing) to hear the differences and damage that digital recording record/playback does WRT the original multitrack.
Missing was microdynamics, life, air and pleasant and extended highs.
Eric.
Exact Audio Copy should be run in "Secure" mode to actually look for errors. To my surprise, error correction was invoked (you can watch it happen in EAC secure mode) even on shiny new CDs--and this was using my Plextor. Using lesser CD readers, I bet many new CDs would invoke error correction quite a bit more.
--Leo
--Leo
I only copy brand new and shiny CDs. It would be interesting how many error corrections are invoked while making copies from EAC copied CDs.
My impression was the same as Eric's:
"Missing was microdynamics, life, air and pleasant and extended highs."
My impression was the same as Eric's:
"Missing was microdynamics, life, air and pleasant and extended highs."
No, Peter you don´t have to send me. I believe every word of you.
So what we know for sure is that your Matsushita recorded CDRs,
with this brand and Nero 5 sounds worse than a copy in your Audio
recorder. Both not as good as the original.
Wombat
So what we know for sure is that your Matsushita recorded CDRs,
with this brand and Nero 5 sounds worse than a copy in your Audio
recorder. Both not as good as the original.
Wombat
I made 2 copis of some of the CDs I have.
one copy made using my Marantz CD R (DR 6000) using TDK Audio CDR.
one copy made using HP 8250i CDR on my desktop using Maxell computer CDR.
Both CDRs were bough in spindles from Frys.
The computer copy was made using one drive (I only have a CDR on the desktop no CD reader). The Audio CD copy was made using a Phonosophie CD player.
both copies were then heard via 3 systems. one is my home made system, the other is my brother in law's system. Both systems are quite good (I can provide details if needed but that is another thread) the 3rd system was a Creative speaker 3 piece speaker system used with my desktop.
result?
There were slight differences between the Audio CD copy and computer CD copy on the 2 audio systems - the Audio CD copies were better. Not much. On the computer audio system (Creative) the computer copy sounded better! It must got to do with what each system was expecting.
The Audio copies sounded a bit dull on the computer system. The computer copies sounded a bit harsh on the Audio system. Both copies did not have as much air as the orignal but the Audio copies on the Audio systems were very close.
If you ask me I will stick to making copies using my Audio CD recorder for 2 reasons. 1. I bought one. 2. it is simpler. My nephew and BIL use their computers to make copies. I find nothing wrong with that their copies cost 1/3 mine and they get 80% of the sound. Not a bad trade off.
Cheers.
one copy made using my Marantz CD R (DR 6000) using TDK Audio CDR.
one copy made using HP 8250i CDR on my desktop using Maxell computer CDR.
Both CDRs were bough in spindles from Frys.
The computer copy was made using one drive (I only have a CDR on the desktop no CD reader). The Audio CD copy was made using a Phonosophie CD player.
both copies were then heard via 3 systems. one is my home made system, the other is my brother in law's system. Both systems are quite good (I can provide details if needed but that is another thread) the 3rd system was a Creative speaker 3 piece speaker system used with my desktop.
result?
There were slight differences between the Audio CD copy and computer CD copy on the 2 audio systems - the Audio CD copies were better. Not much. On the computer audio system (Creative) the computer copy sounded better! It must got to do with what each system was expecting.
The Audio copies sounded a bit dull on the computer system. The computer copies sounded a bit harsh on the Audio system. Both copies did not have as much air as the orignal but the Audio copies on the Audio systems were very close.
If you ask me I will stick to making copies using my Audio CD recorder for 2 reasons. 1. I bought one. 2. it is simpler. My nephew and BIL use their computers to make copies. I find nothing wrong with that their copies cost 1/3 mine and they get 80% of the sound. Not a bad trade off.
Cheers.
CD sound
I would be very surprised if error correction *was not* invoked! Error correction makes CD technology possible. Note that error correction produces an exact copy of the original and cannot be a cause of difference in sound.
There is also a thing called 'error concealment', which *will* cause differences between original and copy, which then may account for sound differences. Error concealment is quite rare, and would indicate serious problems either on the replay or on the recording side.
Jan Didden
Leo V said:
I would be very surprised if error correction *was not* invoked! Error correction makes CD technology possible. Note that error correction produces an exact copy of the original and cannot be a cause of difference in sound.
There is also a thing called 'error concealment', which *will* cause differences between original and copy, which then may account for sound differences. Error concealment is quite rare, and would indicate serious problems either on the replay or on the recording side.
Jan Didden
Peter Daniel said:
I am a bit shocked.... Can you please explain me your above statement a bit???
Edwin
What I meant by error correction was EAC re-reading a position on the CD many times in some places, because it had difficulty retrieving the correct information. My implication was that, if EAC has trouble reading these parts, then a CD player would probably have at least as much trouble. Except the CD player wouldn't go back and re-read, rather it would "fill in the blanks" at a cost to sound quality.
--Leo
--Leo
Peter Daniel said:
I am not sure if you mean to make any claims about media differences,
but it might be appropriate to point out a common misconception
about Audio CDR. Many people think they are better than other
CDRs for recording music, and salesmen usually claim that.
Although there might be certain brands that have better quality
on their Audio CDRs this is not generally true. The only reason
there are special Audio CDRs is that in the US there is a tax on
Audio CDRs but not on computer CDRs. An audio CD REcorder
will refuse to record or play a CDR unless it contains a special
code, indicating that it is an Audio CDR with prepaid tax. Audio
CDR have this code already from factory, while a computer
CD recorder will add that code to the media when it writes a
CDR for audio usage. According to Kodak there is no difference
in the actual media between their Audio Gold and their Ultima.
It is even recommended not to use Audio Gold if recording music
on a computer, where Ultima is labelled as excellent instead.
You might compare the media at
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/digital/cdr/tech/compare.jhtml
Although the info is still on the web, Kodak has unfortunately
stopped producing CDR as far as I know.
Now, back to Peters post. There could of course still be
differences between recording on an audio recorder and
a computer one, even if it does not depend on the media.
An audio recorder is probably of higher quality, less susceptible
to vibrations etc. A computer recorder (most of them) live its
live in an envoronment that is full of electric noise, vibrations
from hard disk and fans etc.
Leo V said:
Again, error correction doesnot 'fill in the blanks', but provides an exact copy without a single bit in error.
Error concealment does fill in the blanks.
In your case of repeated reading, there is a serious problem, and this should be very rare with correctly functioning equipment, and should be blamed on the source disk. Obviously, with a grossly defect source you cannot expect a good copy.
Jan Didden
Gabe, if your burner can make perfect CD's (let's asume that), ask a friend to shift the CD's for you, then have a blind test. I'm sure that you can't hear a difference (my point of view). Can you pick the burned CD with more than 70-90% right, then it's probely true. My point of view here is that the mind is very strong. My mind also....Gabevee said:
Edit:
Try to get two CD players (of the same kind) also if possible.
Edwin Dorre said:
I'm a pirate.
😉I had to figure out some ways to reduce my spending, if I wanted to stay in DIY Audio full time.😉
Peranders,
I am very well aware of the fact of mind over... whatever. I was not expecting to hear any kind of difference at all. The burned CD should sound exactly like the original. But... other folks in the DIY group hear a difference, bad or good.
I have been pondering over it long and hard over the past couple of days. The only things I can think of that make sense are, as Peter said, compression. It is possible that higher amplitude signals have been reworked via the transfer of the data from CD to memory or hard drive buffer, then rewritten somewhat differently to the new disk. Only a true one to one copy, or as Peter said "on the fly" copy will maintain the dynamics of the original, I would think. It should anyway.
I say this because some subtle low amplitude music material seems louder, hence more audible, giving the impression of more detail.
The other thought was touched on in another post, where the question of single speed copying was brought up. I use the highest speed I can. I am going to try single speed to see if it is different.
Thanks,
Gabe
I am very well aware of the fact of mind over... whatever. I was not expecting to hear any kind of difference at all. The burned CD should sound exactly like the original. But... other folks in the DIY group hear a difference, bad or good.
I have been pondering over it long and hard over the past couple of days. The only things I can think of that make sense are, as Peter said, compression. It is possible that higher amplitude signals have been reworked via the transfer of the data from CD to memory or hard drive buffer, then rewritten somewhat differently to the new disk. Only a true one to one copy, or as Peter said "on the fly" copy will maintain the dynamics of the original, I would think. It should anyway.
I say this because some subtle low amplitude music material seems louder, hence more audible, giving the impression of more detail.
The other thought was touched on in another post, where the question of single speed copying was brought up. I use the highest speed I can. I am going to try single speed to see if it is different.
Thanks,
Gabe
Please Gabevee, didn't you say you were a computer scientist? 😉
There is no compression at all when you copy CDs to/from the
hard disk, unless you use MP3 or other compressed formats.
Under windows the data from the CD is stored in a wave file
which is PCM coded, just as the CD data itself, and the data is
preserved. The wave files in Wndows are general enough to
handle more than 16 bits, higher sample frequencies
and more than 2 channels, should you need that. I don't know
what file formats Mac and Linux use, but I am sure they also
preserve the data.
Actually, the wave files are very nice since they are so simple.
It is quite easy to write programs that generates wave files
with various test signals that you can record on a CDR.
Similarily it is easy to collect data via the soundcard for analysis
(although the soundcard will set a limit here, of course).
There is no compression at all when you copy CDs to/from the
hard disk, unless you use MP3 or other compressed formats.
Under windows the data from the CD is stored in a wave file
which is PCM coded, just as the CD data itself, and the data is
preserved. The wave files in Wndows are general enough to
handle more than 16 bits, higher sample frequencies
and more than 2 channels, should you need that. I don't know
what file formats Mac and Linux use, but I am sure they also
preserve the data.
Actually, the wave files are very nice since they are so simple.
It is quite easy to write programs that generates wave files
with various test signals that you can record on a CDR.
Similarily it is easy to collect data via the soundcard for analysis
(although the soundcard will set a limit here, of course).
As is said before, the data itself is absolutely the same as
on the original BIT BY BIT if no read errors occure.
So the different sound only comes from the way the data is
written to CD. Lets call it the stream on the CDR is more "jittery".
So the optics in the CD-Player has more work to read it and
creates different sound this way. Noisy enviroment high writing
speeds and bad media will raise these problems.
No compression or attenuation is done to the music data!!
Wombat
edit: ups, same time postet as Christer
on the original BIT BY BIT if no read errors occure.
So the different sound only comes from the way the data is
written to CD. Lets call it the stream on the CDR is more "jittery".
So the optics in the CD-Player has more work to read it and
creates different sound this way. Noisy enviroment high writing
speeds and bad media will raise these problems.
No compression or attenuation is done to the music data!!
Wombat
edit: ups, same time postet as Christer
Why etc
As said before, this line of reasoning assumes that there indeed IS a difference in sound. Unless that is established without a shadow of a doubt, all this is interesting but trivial speculation. Sorry.
Jan Didden
As said before, this line of reasoning assumes that there indeed IS a difference in sound. Unless that is established without a shadow of a doubt, all this is interesting but trivial speculation. Sorry.
Jan Didden
Also, don't forget that you really clone the audio file, EXACT copy. You can't loose any amplitude.
You can get into trouble if you burner is a little bit older and can't burn "disc at once", then you really won't get exact copies but this is only between the tracks. You can't burn with zero pause, very irritating if you have a live recording.
You can get into trouble if you burner is a little bit older and can't burn "disc at once", then you really won't get exact copies but this is only between the tracks. You can't burn with zero pause, very irritating if you have a live recording.
Christer,
No, not computer scientist. 🙁 Professional.
I know much digital info, but haven't gotten into it this deeply in years. Concentrating on WAN/LAN stuff.
I am going to have to get a couple of books on the latest trends.
As for the nay sayers, one of the recordings I have copied is a Phillips recording of Beethoven's 4th and 5th piano concertos. The original disc skipped occasionally (the player would of course resume from where it left off), indicating to me a weak recording. When I copied it, no more skip. I do notice that the reflective layer was so thin on the original one could see through it, FWIW. Again, it does sound better.
Gabe
No, not computer scientist. 🙁 Professional.
I know much digital info, but haven't gotten into it this deeply in years. Concentrating on WAN/LAN stuff.
I am going to have to get a couple of books on the latest trends.
As for the nay sayers, one of the recordings I have copied is a Phillips recording of Beethoven's 4th and 5th piano concertos. The original disc skipped occasionally (the player would of course resume from where it left off), indicating to me a weak recording. When I copied it, no more skip. I do notice that the reflective layer was so thin on the original one could see through it, FWIW. Again, it does sound better.
Gabe
mind melt
The absolute techguy speaks (rightside of brain)
1) If a burned CB sounds different from the original, then the CD is not 'digital' the same as the original cd. This should make the copy of data cd impossible, because if the data is not as the original then the new data cd will not work.
2) As long the cd transport can read the datastream correctly there can be no audiable change from the original cd.
3) The 'bitstream' from the CD is kinda timebuffered from the the DAC, small differeance in lenght in 'one' and 'zeros' will not alter the sound produced. All serial digital transports works this way.
4) A cd transport is NOT affecting the sound of the produced sound. As long the DAC is feed with correct digital stream, all digital transport will produce the 'same' sound. Again - small time errors etc will not change the work of the DAC.
5) This is the absolute truth, there is no way trick the datastream. Exception is rare products that is constructed to behave in this way, thoose products are badly designed.
6) Not a single CD tweak works (as long there is no read errors). Keeping CD in ****, painting sides green, etc. There is no effect.
The Hifiguy speak (left side of brain)
1) I have heard differences in the sound from some CD tweaks. For example, there was one guy who soaked the CD in a not static fluid.
It would be interestring to hear some tec reasons why cd tweaks shoud work. Since I have talked about this with guy who designs and constructs profensiol equipment for digitaldata streams (video, audio,data) and they claims that all chances are only in "the mind"
The absolute techguy speaks (rightside of brain)
1) If a burned CB sounds different from the original, then the CD is not 'digital' the same as the original cd. This should make the copy of data cd impossible, because if the data is not as the original then the new data cd will not work.
2) As long the cd transport can read the datastream correctly there can be no audiable change from the original cd.
3) The 'bitstream' from the CD is kinda timebuffered from the the DAC, small differeance in lenght in 'one' and 'zeros' will not alter the sound produced. All serial digital transports works this way.
4) A cd transport is NOT affecting the sound of the produced sound. As long the DAC is feed with correct digital stream, all digital transport will produce the 'same' sound. Again - small time errors etc will not change the work of the DAC.
5) This is the absolute truth, there is no way trick the datastream. Exception is rare products that is constructed to behave in this way, thoose products are badly designed.
6) Not a single CD tweak works (as long there is no read errors). Keeping CD in ****, painting sides green, etc. There is no effect.
The Hifiguy speak (left side of brain)
1) I have heard differences in the sound from some CD tweaks. For example, there was one guy who soaked the CD in a not static fluid.
It would be interestring to hear some tec reasons why cd tweaks shoud work. Since I have talked about this with guy who designs and constructs profensiol equipment for digitaldata streams (video, audio,data) and they claims that all chances are only in "the mind"
Gabevee said:
OK. I hope you didn't get me wrong, though. It was only meant
as a friendly joke. BTW, I am a computer scientist, but you would
have plenty of opportunity to give back. I am not very good at
the practical matters in general. I did check up on wave file some
years ago, when I wanted to make a test CD, so that why I
know about them. Probably wouldn't have cared about them
otherwise, just using them.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.