How do I make a CD-r copy that sounds identical to the original CD?

Hi, this is my first post here. I've read some threads in the past saying that no matter how a CD is ripped and burned, it will always sound different from the original. At least some people have claimed to hear a difference between them in each and every case. Was there something wrong with the rip or burn to cause that? Was there something wrong with the software or hardware used to rip and burn a disc? How do I make a CD-R copy of a disc that will 100% sound identical to the original? I ask because I have some Japanese CDs and Audiophile discs I would like to make a copy of. I don't want to waste my time and money on CD-Rs if they are no matter what going to sound different and therefore inferior to the original. Sorry for the long opening post. I tend to babble on sometimes.

 

Import the CD into iTunes as Apple Lossless files, and burn a CD from those tracks. The resulting sound quality will be identical.

 

"some people have claimed to hear a difference"

 

The only differences between a pressed CD and a CD-R are the physical materials and the method used to create it (injection molding for CDs, laser "burning" of the bits onto the disc for CD-Rs). In the very earliest days, some CD players didn't read CD-Rs very well. The players caught up almost immediately, however, and from that point on they sounded identical. I've never read of a double-blind study where people could tell the difference between the two, despite some people "claiming" to.

 

And I've read in TAS that a copied CD can sound better than the original due to another cycle of error correction.

 

A) Why do you assume different would be inferior?
B) Why don't you make a copy and see if you can hear any differences before you worry about anything else. I'd wager most people can't.

 

Actually, you want to rip to a continuous WAV and CUE (to preserve the timing/spacing)....verify it's an error free rip.....then burn.

Ripping in iTunes and such to multiple files SHOULD sound the same, but there's no verification....their error correction may or may not effect it....and if there's gapless index they will be lost....my way is the only way to have an undetectable copy of a CD. Whether doing it another way sounds different inside a given song....there are too many variables. It shouldn't, but there are a lot of variables that could change it.

If you want to get ultra OCD, rip the CDR the same way and Accurip check that. Or pull both WAVs into a DAW, line them up and flip the phase on one. If you get an album of silence, it's the same audio.

I mean--we can go way out there in making sure it's the same data on the disc, but there's still a variable of how well your CD player reads the particular CDR media. Much like the "is FLAC really lossless" thing--it's not always as simple as all the same 1s and 0s being there. There's a real time playback component in both cases that can (but isn't always) going to change the sound.

FWIW--I have my whole catalog ripped to files that way. If the wife wants to take something in her car, I make her a CDR. She can't have my originals--she scratches them up.

 

1) Rip CD and create a disc image. You can do this with EAC or some other program like Roxio.

2) Write the CD-R from that disc image with a program that will write ISO disc image files. Use the most optimal writing speed for your CD-R.

This will create a 100% bit-perfect copy of your original CD. Fast, simple, and no hassle.

 

Thanks for all the replies!

I was reading an old thread here yesterday. I can't find it now to quote it but a couple people posting said they either can always pick out which is the cd-r or original cd or that they know someone personally who can identify which is which every single time. They said they have tested it with numerous cd-r's all using different burn and rip methods and software. Whenever I read about such things it is assumed different means inferior. Reading that in the thread concerned me because part of what makes certain japanese pressings preferred for sound is the pressing. I'd hate to make a sonically inferior version.

 

Again, I'd say make a copy as an experiment using whatever burning software happens to be on your computer and see if you can hear a meaningful difference in your intended application. Most people make copies for the car. I am confident you will hear no difference in the car. At any rate differences will be subtle and require very transparent gear and/or well trained ears to detect. And some people who hear differences have reported copies sound better than the original. So just make a copy and see what you hear before going down this rabbit hole.

 

The Japanese have been experimenting with different materials for pressed CDs. They claim certain new materials sound better than a regular CD. As far as I know, this has never been proven in a double-blind listening test. Your ears are the best test bed for you personally, but beware of the placebo effect. I have some great-sounding Japanese CDs, but I'm quite sure the difference is in the mastering and not the pressing. I can't tell the difference when I burn them to a high quality CD-R blank, but then maybe I'm just not blessed/cursed with "golden ears".

 

When I dub CD's using high quality blanks and my Harman Kardon CDR 30, I am hard pressed to tell any difference. Maybe my ears are shot, but they both sound the same to me.

 

Go to Soundkeeperrecordings.com and follow the links to Barry Diment's Blog as he has some interesting comments about disc burned music. I own a number of Barry's recordings that are first rate and I consider him an expert about the "bits" that drive our hobby.

 

How about a CD recorder? I make CD-r compilations all the time and I have yet to rip a CD to a computer, or use a program. Digital "out" from my CD player to digital "in" on my CD recorder deck and I end up with a copy that sounds identical to me.

 

101010001010101000100=101010001010101000100

 

As I've mentioned elsewhere, if this were true, one could make a copy of a copy, and then make a copy of that copy... do it a few more generations and you'd end up with a CD that would sound magical in relation to the original.

 

It doesn't necessarily have to be one continuous wav. If properly ripped, no indexing data is lost - it's all in the cue, whether ripped to one file or ripped to many. The original disc can still be rebuilt identically.


Either way it's done, this is the ONLY way to make a copy that is 100% identical to the original disc.

 

That may be true if there is silence in between all songs--silence stored in the cue files as timestamps may reconstitute--but, as soon as you throw in a transition without silence, or various oddball "hidden track" scenarios, I was no longer able to reconstitute. I guess I should point out that my research wasn't horribly exhaustive....I was ripping CueRipper and EAC in some combo on the Windows boxes and XLD on the Mac, though I think there was a demo of DBPowerAmp, too--for the HDCD decoding experimentations. Anyway--I literally chose CDs I knew had non silent track transitions and hidden tracks, etc--because I wanted the testing to reflect "worst case scenario"....however, I don't know how prevelant those are anymore--so, it could be that since 95% of CD have none of the above, separate files works.

It was pretty important to me that I be able to reconstitute, as I don't like playing computer files.....and really was looking at this as backup of the discs that are now hard to replace, given their old masterings.

It's also possible that I was doing it wrong. Wouldn't be the first or eight thousandth time! So, if you have info of how to achieve that without--everyone would benefit, including myself.

 

It definitely does work in all "worst case scenario" discs discs with audio in pregaps, pregaps of all sorts of lengths, even discs with hidden audio before track 1 (although this requires a little extra work)

I do everything in EAC, and to be honest I just set it up using a guide I found online years ago, but once I set it up I've been able to perfectly recreate all kinds of extreme-case scenarios on disc and rewrite the disc perfectly, testing with accuraterip and comparing crcs to the rip it came from, etc. you name it.
Of course, if you are simply creating backups to write back to disc, then it wouldn't make much of any difference, but for those who intend to make full use of a digital music library, discs properly ripped track by track would be a much more manageable solution.

 

Did you actually try doing it yet?

 

Yes this is completely true. A burned CD-R will never sound the same as the original even though the data on it is precisely the same, though if done well it should generally sound better. I have experienced this myself in dedicated experiments over the last year, including double blind tests. The "sound" of a CD-R is governed not only by the brand and type of CD-R, but also the drive used to burn it and the burn speed. The question isn't whether the sound is different - it is whether the difference is sufficient for you to notice it or not. Sometimes the differences are extremely small, sometimes they are significant.

On my workstation after burning a CD-R, it's playback capability of that CD-R (in terms of playback amplification and the headphones used) simply is not good enough to bring out the differences amongst different CD-Rs or even burn speeds. But on my high resolution setup, the differences are extremely obvious to the point where you would even swear it was a different mastering of that music program until you secure ripped them and found them to contain precisely the same data.

The most accurate CD-R to the source file I have ever experienced are the Taiyo Yuden SPMPT mastering CD-R burned using a Pioneer S09J-X blu-ray drive at 4x. This, however is a very expensive way to burn CD-Rs as they can cost $10 for each blank and the drive itself is close to $400. But that is the price you have to pay if you have a highly resolving system, well developed listening skills and want something as true as possible to the source (by source I mean the secure ripped file, not the original commercial pressed disk). Otherwise it is all downhill from there. But as I say, if you don't possess the listening skills or sufficiently resolving equipment, it doesn't matter. A $1 Taiyo Yuden blank burned on a $100 external Pioneer blu-ray drive will give you about 95% the quality of the aforementioned combination.

Incidentally, the notion that different physical Cd media can sound different with identical program material is nothing new. Read the link to Barry Diament's blog above for example. Wilma Cozart Fine also had the same problems prior to the release of the first batches of Mercury Living Presence disks back in the very early 90s.

 

No it wouldn't because each time you go to make a new copy even from a copy, your master file always remains precisely the same as it does when you made that very first copy.

 

I doubt that there is an audible difference apart from the correction of possible errors. If it is a bit perfect copy it should sound the same. If a drive could not make bitperfect copies, copied computer programs would not work and copied files would be corrupted. So it can't be rocket science to make an exact copy.

Btw. I would not use CD-r copies for archival purposes. They become unreadable so soon, five years maybe.

 

I wouldn't either, but disc life depends a lot on the quality of the blank and how the burned disc is stored. I have a basement full of live performances on Taiyo Yuden CD-Rs stored in my (dry) basement that I burned in the 90s, and I have yet to pull out a disc that doesn't play just fine.