Gosh, all this knowledge is now giving ME the jitters. 
I didn't know that a single bit of data (either a one or a zero) can contain so much more, or that a 10-20 picosecond spike or time difference (translating into terahertz frequency) was such a problem for the 96 kHz sampling of a recording studio, even with 8X oversampling (that would barely reach 1 megahertz, BTW).
If they have so much trouble with their recording equipment, then they need to dismantle their 20 year old technology and get new stuff (notice how the author of one of your articles exagerates the 72,000,000,000 copies of the CD. I doubt that Steely Dan's new CD broke 1 million, let alone 72 billion, as much as I love their music. I know, he was probably being facetious).
There are many things being ignored in these "articles" and/or the term "jitter" has a new meaning now that I am unaware of.
As Johan touched on and I didn't even think about, the data has to undergo serial to parallel conversion as well. This means more buffering and memory (very key to the process of s-p conversion) and program error correction, if any (errors). Oh, the buffering part takes weak and dirty (jittery?) data and cleans it up, BTW. Or am I also out of touch with these facts as well?
And as he said, once the latch is set to a state in memory, there aren't other bits of data residing in that one bit of memory cell.
If memory serves, even if the circuitry is on separate boards, and each circuit has its own clock, there is such a thing as synchronization that occurs (AKA handshaking... in the datacomm world), that must occur. Otherwise, nothing would work. In fact there is more to worry about right here under my fingertips than in any CD (or analog to digital) anything when it comes to clean and error free data transfer, from my fingers to your eyes.
Now if we say noise is a problem, which is what you sound like you are referring to (as well as those articles), then I say... the power supply and support circuitry suck to begin with. Get better equipment. OR put some filter caps in strategical locations to filter out the noise. Otherwise we aren't comparing oranges to oranges.
As for the CD and DVD players at home and in my car... they use brute force power supplies with voltage regulators. No leakage (jitter?) from 80kHz switching there.
While I am sure they mean well, I think newer recording engineers, like electronics technicians, get superficial knowledge of theory. Especially these days where, having talked to several college professors about their curriculum, they have to trim down and eliminate the more basic and, to me, important parts of technology, due to the overwhelming amount of new knowledge and developments. Sad.
Well, as Forrest Gump would say: "That's all I've got to say about that".
Gabe
I didn't know that a single bit of data (either a one or a zero) can contain so much more, or that a 10-20 picosecond spike or time difference (translating into terahertz frequency) was such a problem for the 96 kHz sampling of a recording studio, even with 8X oversampling (that would barely reach 1 megahertz, BTW).
If they have so much trouble with their recording equipment, then they need to dismantle their 20 year old technology and get new stuff (notice how the author of one of your articles exagerates the 72,000,000,000 copies of the CD. I doubt that Steely Dan's new CD broke 1 million, let alone 72 billion, as much as I love their music. I know, he was probably being facetious).
There are many things being ignored in these "articles" and/or the term "jitter" has a new meaning now that I am unaware of.
As Johan touched on and I didn't even think about, the data has to undergo serial to parallel conversion as well. This means more buffering and memory (very key to the process of s-p conversion) and program error correction, if any (errors). Oh, the buffering part takes weak and dirty (jittery?) data and cleans it up, BTW. Or am I also out of touch with these facts as well?
And as he said, once the latch is set to a state in memory, there aren't other bits of data residing in that one bit of memory cell.
If memory serves, even if the circuitry is on separate boards, and each circuit has its own clock, there is such a thing as synchronization that occurs (AKA handshaking... in the datacomm world), that must occur. Otherwise, nothing would work. In fact there is more to worry about right here under my fingertips than in any CD (or analog to digital) anything when it comes to clean and error free data transfer, from my fingers to your eyes.
Now if we say noise is a problem, which is what you sound like you are referring to (as well as those articles), then I say... the power supply and support circuitry suck to begin with. Get better equipment. OR put some filter caps in strategical locations to filter out the noise. Otherwise we aren't comparing oranges to oranges.
As for the CD and DVD players at home and in my car... they use brute force power supplies with voltage regulators. No leakage (jitter?) from 80kHz switching there.
While I am sure they mean well, I think newer recording engineers, like electronics technicians, get superficial knowledge of theory. Especially these days where, having talked to several college professors about their curriculum, they have to trim down and eliminate the more basic and, to me, important parts of technology, due to the overwhelming amount of new knowledge and developments. Sad.
Well, as Forrest Gump would say: "That's all I've got to say about that".
Gabe
This started to be a question about importance or unimportance of the jitter. So it seems like it went out of the original intentions.
Gabevee,
I’ve never used Roxio, but that what you talking about is most similar to that what EAC, AudioCatalyst and some audio editing programs (as SoundForge) call “normalizing”. Normalizing mean sound processing. However, I understood the thread you started discuses non-processing phenomenon. Obviously, the file after normalizing is not bit identical to that before normalizing. (Btw, I found the problems caused by normalizing less than those caused by coping itself) So, that is the different story.
Patwen,
From the page you gave the link for:
“...for most digital to digital transfers, jitter is most likely irrelevant to the final result...”
and,
“...until we can correlate jitter measurements adequately against sonic results, I will leave some room for doubt...” (actually, this is about the sentence above, but take it as a general rule about the jitter)
Again, it is quite logical the jitter IS relevant in D/A conversion, A/D conversion and in transition of the digital signal when it actually have analog nature. For all other cases I don’t see a room to talk about the jitter.
And again, I don’t need 99th copy to evaluate the differnce. The first is enough.
Pedja
Gabevee,
I’ve never used Roxio, but that what you talking about is most similar to that what EAC, AudioCatalyst and some audio editing programs (as SoundForge) call “normalizing”. Normalizing mean sound processing. However, I understood the thread you started discuses non-processing phenomenon. Obviously, the file after normalizing is not bit identical to that before normalizing. (Btw, I found the problems caused by normalizing less than those caused by coping itself) So, that is the different story.
Patwen,
From the page you gave the link for:
“...for most digital to digital transfers, jitter is most likely irrelevant to the final result...”
and,
“...until we can correlate jitter measurements adequately against sonic results, I will leave some room for doubt...” (actually, this is about the sentence above, but take it as a general rule about the jitter)
Again, it is quite logical the jitter IS relevant in D/A conversion, A/D conversion and in transition of the digital signal when it actually have analog nature. For all other cases I don’t see a room to talk about the jitter.
And again, I don’t need 99th copy to evaluate the differnce. The first is enough.
Pedja
Gabevee said:
I'm no expert, but it seems to me that jitter could creep into every aspect of the process, even when a buffer is used for serial to parallel conversion. Sure, the data isn't subject to jitter once it is latched into the buffer. But what operates the latch? Surely it is still subject to jitter? I think there is no escaping it.
Glad to see that pedantism is as alive and well today as it was when cd was first introduced. perfect sound forever and jitter is the just the result of smoking too much dope. great. why repeat it so much though? it's really beginning to wear out thin.
I seldom make cd copies to listen in the car, but jitter or no jitter they sound nothing like the originals. I've had a string of cd recorders, both scsi and ide, with various specs, the only common one being copies sounding different to the original. for me different means worse, but i'll gladly accept that for others it may be better. Less air and resolution, but also less annoying and troublesome transients. Pretty much what an oil cap (also loved by many) achieves.
Even in the car (very old stereo) the difference is obvious. Then again i admit to occassionaly listenning with no ear plugs.
peter
I seldom make cd copies to listen in the car, but jitter or no jitter they sound nothing like the originals. I've had a string of cd recorders, both scsi and ide, with various specs, the only common one being copies sounding different to the original. for me different means worse, but i'll gladly accept that for others it may be better. Less air and resolution, but also less annoying and troublesome transients. Pretty much what an oil cap (also loved by many) achieves.
Even in the car (very old stereo) the difference is obvious. Then again i admit to occassionaly listenning with no ear plugs.
peter
Heh, Peter, You wrote:
and You also wrote:
The reason of price difference between CD-R for audio and CD-R for data is simple - the first one does have royalty fees for content included in price. So as You're using these expensive CD-Rs You may feel yourself Ok - You have paid all royalties to record labels by purchasing these CD-Rs already. 🙂. I am also pretty sure that record companies get some percentage of the sales price of audio copying equipment as well - somehow they tend to be alot pricier than these cheap CD-writers we have in our computers nowadays.
So You may sleep well, You are not a pirate, You are just optimizing Your spendings within legally permitted limits 🙂
Of course, someone may try to convince I'm wrong 😛
- M -
Peter Daniel 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.😉
and You also wrote:
Peter Daniel said:
The reason of price difference between CD-R for audio and CD-R for data is simple - the first one does have royalty fees for content included in price. So as You're using these expensive CD-Rs You may feel yourself Ok - You have paid all royalties to record labels by purchasing these CD-Rs already. 🙂. I am also pretty sure that record companies get some percentage of the sales price of audio copying equipment as well - somehow they tend to be alot pricier than these cheap CD-writers we have in our computers nowadays.
So You may sleep well, You are not a pirate, You are just optimizing Your spendings within legally permitted limits 🙂
Of course, someone may try to convince I'm wrong 😛
- M -
For the ones that are still interested. I have found an very informative link.
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Articles/Specific.asp?ArticleHeadline=Writing Quality&Series=0
hmm... looks like i will have a Yamaha F1 in my PC soon.
Wombat
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Articles/Specific.asp?ArticleHeadline=Writing Quality&Series=0
hmm... looks like i will have a Yamaha F1 in my PC soon.
Wombat
back to the first topic and the first question 😉
Hey gabevee, pls thinked simple... as i am..
did you ever make copy from the upgrade sound to another CDR again, is it much2x better from the original? or if you even make a copy from the 5th offspring with same CDR and the same drive? 😀 is it very diffrent? sorry i must try this to prove it my self 🙄
I often copy some cd, i noticed that but never get deeply what make the diffrent, some good and some bad, really. and in one time i just copy one, maybe later again, but never make direct comparison 🙁
but after read this thread, and remember my own expirienced...
i got bliss of this probs!!
my computer nowdays is very strong for just procesing data from cd audio, so take it, no single bit is change. IMHO only the CDR is the problem, better or worst from original. some of the cdr use good material and some CUT THE PRICE LOW, the plastic, the layer.. even the glue!! so some cdr are very cheap and some a bit expensive, even in the generic class 😱
Like writing in a plain paper or in a fancy expensive paper, the writing is still there... but what most do you like? 😀
i also have the strange problem with CDR, i got this copy from my fiend with the cheapest CDR ever made... for some month i can enjoy it. then keep it, a year later the CDR is hard to read in a player or in a CD ROM drive, phisicaly with a naked eye nothing happend with this disc, even a small scratched or bending...
I asking...why5x.... and result is THAT CDR must be the problem!!
i dont know. is it the glue or aging layer!!
now according to your post, why copy is better than original, cause record company must use a little better than generic DISC!!
but some company use some so-so DISC too 🙄
Hey gabevee, pls thinked simple... as i am..
did you ever make copy from the upgrade sound to another CDR again, is it much2x better from the original? or if you even make a copy from the 5th offspring with same CDR and the same drive? 😀 is it very diffrent? sorry i must try this to prove it my self 🙄
I often copy some cd, i noticed that but never get deeply what make the diffrent, some good and some bad, really. and in one time i just copy one, maybe later again, but never make direct comparison 🙁
but after read this thread, and remember my own expirienced...
i got bliss of this probs!!
my computer nowdays is very strong for just procesing data from cd audio, so take it, no single bit is change. IMHO only the CDR is the problem, better or worst from original. some of the cdr use good material and some CUT THE PRICE LOW, the plastic, the layer.. even the glue!! so some cdr are very cheap and some a bit expensive, even in the generic class 😱
Like writing in a plain paper or in a fancy expensive paper, the writing is still there... but what most do you like? 😀
i also have the strange problem with CDR, i got this copy from my fiend with the cheapest CDR ever made... for some month i can enjoy it. then keep it, a year later the CDR is hard to read in a player or in a CD ROM drive, phisicaly with a naked eye nothing happend with this disc, even a small scratched or bending...
I asking...why5x.... and result is THAT CDR must be the problem!!
i dont know. is it the glue or aging layer!!
now according to your post, why copy is better than original, cause record company must use a little better than generic DISC!!
but some company use some so-so DISC too 🙄
Peter...
Thanks for confirming my findings. (Man, it's been awhile since posting this). However... the issue is still... it shoud not be different in any way!
Jitter is NOT the reason, and does NOT exist in circuitry other than because of the nonlinear properties of the drive/read head itself. Unless, again, someone can tell me that there is a new definition of the term, pedantia notwithstanding.
A'af,
That is an interesting idea. I actually have not tried to copy copies. Just testing different drives.
I found out today that a friend (a digital recording engineer) has discovered that the frequency response varies +/- several decibels above 12kHz. As if there was some intermodulation distortion of some kind. He has tested this on many different CD drives/players, right out of the D/A converter. Results are the same. And it is not his test gear.
Now THIS I believe is why CD sound is bad in some cases, especially when boosting highs too much or recording loudly. It makes the most sense, all things considered. Oversampling clears this up, is his finding.
Gabe
Not really, if you mean by panacea that it is a cover, a cure for the symptom but not the disease.
To a degree, it is. However, one problem in my opinion has been that the 44.1kHz sampling rate, or the 96 kHz studio rate, is too low. With 44.1kHz, a 20kHz signal is not represented as a sine wave at all. If it were sampled at 100 times more, rather than double (or at 2 MHz), then it would be more sine wave resolute. No problenms with phase shift caused IM distortions.
However, digital electronic technology being as it was back in 1969-1982, when it was first proposed and experimented with and finally created and made available, made anything more than 44.1kHz too impractical, since it would require more compute power and RAM than was available to make it practical.
Now, higher sampling rates of recordings and soon on playback systems will make these issues we are talking about a moot point. And the tech is way more than adequate to fill the bill.
But, the original complaint, or issue was jitter, but I am not going to keep beating that dead horse.
Gabe
To a degree, it is. However, one problem in my opinion has been that the 44.1kHz sampling rate, or the 96 kHz studio rate, is too low. With 44.1kHz, a 20kHz signal is not represented as a sine wave at all. If it were sampled at 100 times more, rather than double (or at 2 MHz), then it would be more sine wave resolute. No problenms with phase shift caused IM distortions.
However, digital electronic technology being as it was back in 1969-1982, when it was first proposed and experimented with and finally created and made available, made anything more than 44.1kHz too impractical, since it would require more compute power and RAM than was available to make it practical.
Now, higher sampling rates of recordings and soon on playback systems will make these issues we are talking about a moot point. And the tech is way more than adequate to fill the bill.
But, the original complaint, or issue was jitter, but I am not going to keep beating that dead horse.
Gabe
I was just about to post my findings on this subject re a recording of Lyle Lovett's "Pontiac" - I was listening to a copy made for the car on my home sytsem, and thought, I don't remember this CD ever sounding so good.
So, get out the original, and wow, what happened to the music??
Then I find you guys have noted this for years!
The difference is basically just what Gabavee notes on his first post.
It is not subtle, more significant than many of the mods I've made on amps, power supplies.
Now to copy my entire CD collection? That's nuts!
Does this difference seem only apparent on some CD's, according to those who have heard the difference?
So, get out the original, and wow, what happened to the music??
Then I find you guys have noted this for years!
The difference is basically just what Gabavee notes on his first post.
It is not subtle, more significant than many of the mods I've made on amps, power supplies.
Now to copy my entire CD collection? That's nuts!
Does this difference seem only apparent on some CD's, according to those who have heard the difference?
Hi Aghead. It is nice to know someone else who hears what I hear.
It is puzzling, but not as much now, to me because difgital is digital, and the copy supposedly gets copied bit for bit, no changes. Well, none that I choose from the options that is. One copier software asks if I want to make all tracks the same volume level. I assume this means some tracks may be recorded lower. This as opposed to compression, or as someone else wrote, "normalization", where according to his description all instruments are brought to equal amplitude (which is incorrect, BTW). Well, this is impossible without some very complex and sophisticated programming, or the original 64 or 128 track recording.
There may be only one very slight remotely possible reason for it, and it could be that the read of a burned CD is not as precise as the original, so error correction is on all the time. Yet, the sonic difference is noticable on all sorts of players, which have different degreees of error correction.
Later!
Gabe
It is puzzling, but not as much now, to me because difgital is digital, and the copy supposedly gets copied bit for bit, no changes. Well, none that I choose from the options that is. One copier software asks if I want to make all tracks the same volume level. I assume this means some tracks may be recorded lower. This as opposed to compression, or as someone else wrote, "normalization", where according to his description all instruments are brought to equal amplitude (which is incorrect, BTW). Well, this is impossible without some very complex and sophisticated programming, or the original 64 or 128 track recording.
There may be only one very slight remotely possible reason for it, and it could be that the read of a burned CD is not as precise as the original, so error correction is on all the time. Yet, the sonic difference is noticable on all sorts of players, which have different degreees of error correction.
Later!
Gabe
Hi everyone,
Just wondering if this is along the same lines as what is being discussed here? I just happened to read that review and then I saw this thread and thought maybe......it might have already been discussed in which case I apologise for coming in late!
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/nanotech/nespa.html
Sorry I don't know how to make that link up.
Cheers Stroop
Just wondering if this is along the same lines as what is being discussed here? I just happened to read that review and then I saw this thread and thought maybe......it might have already been discussed in which case I apologise for coming in late!
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/nanotech/nespa.html
Sorry I don't know how to make that link up.
Cheers Stroop
Check out the link below for an interesting review of copied CDRs.
http://www.genesisloudspeakers.com/whitepaper/White Paper on Black CDs ver 3.1.pdf
http://www.genesisloudspeakers.com/whitepaper/White Paper on Black CDs ver 3.1.pdf
Holy schnykies! bits is bits is bits!!!!!!
OK, I give up.
Remember those outer ring thingies one could put on the disc to stabilize it? Even specialized stands to keep vibration... VIBRATION!😱... from feeding back on to the disc.
No, no, no. Must be sumpin else.
Gabe
OK, I give up.
Remember those outer ring thingies one could put on the disc to stabilize it? Even specialized stands to keep vibration... VIBRATION!😱... from feeding back on to the disc.
No, no, no. Must be sumpin else.
Gabe
Hi Gavebee,
Does this software allow you to raise the level on the recording by a given amount (in dB)?
If so, I would like to know what software this is please?
Some of my CD recordings have a very low level, and I'd like to record some of them to increase it, and optimise them for my playback system.
If not, does anyone know of CD copier software that allows the ability to increase the recording level?
Many thanks,
Jonathan
Does this software allow you to raise the level on the recording by a given amount (in dB)?
If so, I would like to know what software this is please?
Some of my CD recordings have a very low level, and I'd like to record some of them to increase it, and optimise them for my playback system.
If not, does anyone know of CD copier software that allows the ability to increase the recording level?
Many thanks,
Jonathan
If you've got Nero Burning ROM, when you prepare to burn an Audio CD, the Normalise function is available when you put a compilation of tracks in the left window pane, highlight all the tracks, right mouse click > Properties>Filters.
Gabevee said:
Hi
The only correct answer is jitter
The differences depend on the way your systems deals with jitter. Very good digital playback systems will show no differences between original / copy as they are insensitive for jitter rippling through from / caused by the disc.
best
- Status
- Not open for further replies.