Fact Or Fiction: your thoughts???

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by jgrig0, Jun 14, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jgrig0

    jgrig0 Active Member Thread Starter

    1. CDs made on a computer or stand alone CD burner aren't as good as store bought ones and will eventually deteriorate True or False?


    2. Writing the name of a CD on the topside (not the recorded on side) will eventually eat through because of the presence of the chemicals in the magic marker. True or False
     
  2. bdiament

    bdiament Producer, Engineer, Soundkeeper

    Location:
    New York
    Hi J

    In my experience, a good CD-R, burned at slow speed, using a high quality blank will sound *better*. If the original is on your hard drive for example, a well burned CD-R will always show better "focus", fine detail and delineation of space than a pressing of the same computer file. (I've been comparing pressed CDs and the masters from which they're made ever since 1983 and I've never heard a pressing that is indistinguishable from the master.)

    If the "original" is a pressed CD, reading it onto your hard drive and slow burning it onto a good blank will often reveal better focus, detail and space than the original. Pressed CDs are more "jittery" than well burned CD-Rs.

    As to longevity, I still have the first CD-Rs I burned, back in 1990 and they play just fine. So that's 16 years and going. I don't know what the future will bring but I see no indication of any loss so far.


    That top layer *is* thin and using an alcohol-based marker is probably not a good idea. There are water-based markers that might work though. Whatever you do, avoid paper labels, which will disturb the spin and most likely add jitter during playback. I've used both ink-jet printers and thermal printers on CD-Rs with good success.

    Hope this helps.
    Happy Listening!

    Barry
    www.barrydiamentaudio.com
    www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
     
  3. Iamthewalrus

    Iamthewalrus goo goo g'joob

    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    Barry,
    what brand of CD-R's do you recommend. Also, what burning speed do you use.
     
  4. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

     
  5. kevin5brown

    kevin5brown Analog or bust.

    You're going to have to explain this to me. :)

    At best, you can only get a perfect copy of the original. Anything less than that, and you won't get a bit for bit copy. If there is enough "degredation" between the original and the CD-R, and if error correction can't compensate, you will have problems.

    And, it is a fact that CD-R's are not as reflective as the Al that std CDs are made with.

    So I still don't see how a "copy" could be better than the original.
     
  6. Derek Gee

    Derek Gee Senior Member

    Location:
    Detroit
     
  7. bdiament

    bdiament Producer, Engineer, Soundkeeper

    Location:
    New York
    Hi Iamthewalrus,

    I have had good results with discs from Taiyo Yuden, which have become my favorite.
    As to burn speed, my experience has been the slower, the better. However, I've seen some documentation that suggests some blanks in some players do better at 2x than they do at 1x.

    Some modern burners don't burn slower than 4x and I've also had good results with some of these. Anything faster will, to my ears, start to sound like it was phoned in.

    Hope this helps.

    Barry
    www.barrydiamentaudio.com
    www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
     
  8. bdiament

    bdiament Producer, Engineer, Soundkeeper

    Location:
    New York
    Hi kevin5brown,

    My statement referred to a CD-R vs. a pressing with both made from the original master. Since I've never heard a pressing that is indistinguishable from the master it was made from, this suggests to me that CD-R, well burned is better able to preserve the original data.

    That said, in my experience, sometimes a CD-R made from a CD pressing (after a short stop on the hard drive) can sound subtly better than the original. I've read "explanations" of why this might be the case and I'm not sure I'm convinced by the reasoning (yet). Still, I am convinced by the audible evidence.

    I understand your skepticism and suggest trying this out for yourself to find out what you hear.

    As Yogi Berra once said:
    "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."

    Barry
    www.barrydiamentaudio.com
    www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
     
  9. Dave D

    Dave D Done!

    Location:
    Milton, Canada
    Someone here once burned a copy of a copy of a copy of ELO's Zoom, and they swore it sounded better than the original!
     
  10. bdiament

    bdiament Producer, Engineer, Soundkeeper

    Location:
    New York
     
  11. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

     
  12. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    However, concerning the newer burners and current 52x blanks, many newer burners won't even write lower than 8x, and the blanks are optimized for faster burning. With this situation, I don't hear any sound degredation until 16x. So, it seems that even though 1x may be the absolute best-sounding option, IF you can even burn there, 8x is a good option now. And, since the dyes are now optimised for faster burning, the error rates are actually lower.

    If you buy blanks specially made for pro or music-only burning, the dye is more likely to be optimised for slower burning. And, since Taiyo Yuden uses cyanine dye, it's not always the best option for me because I live in a very hot climate for five months out of the year. Cyanine is not as resistient to the effects of heat as the others.
     
  13. Doug Hess Jr.

    Doug Hess Jr. Senior Member

    Location:
    Belpre, Ohio
    The only problems I've had with speed is not the sound, but the player. Some old players (like my boombox) won't play discs that I burn faster than 4X past track 9 and sometimes not at all.
     
  14. Flatlander

    Flatlander Forum Resident

    Location:
    Indy
    Wow!
    That would make it 3 times better, right? :righton:
    I have also noticed an audible difference for the positive on CD-Rs burned after ripping with EAC to the HDD. I can't understand how it is possible to improve the sound by copying it, so I still keep listening. I assumed that there was something better the EAC rip was capable of than the other ripping software I had tried, but that doesn't explain why the CD-R would sound better than the original.
    :sigh:
     
  15. polod

    polod Member

    All my cd-rs read/play, I started burning in 1996. Also I don't write on the label, I either write the contents on the jewel case insert or use a paper cd envelope and write on that. I only use Verbatim disks cd/DVD and I write data and music at the lowest speeds, 4-8x. I keep my disks in carboard archive office boxes for files in a dark/cool place away from sunlight in a basement. Temperature is between 18-20 C, humidity around 40%. So they should last a long time, hopefully.
     
  16. brainwashed

    brainwashed Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Perhaps saying a CDR copy may sound more pleasing than "better" would be more accurate. I have many CDRs that sound different than the originals....a touch less harsh and a bit more defined, IMO. If one measured these differences, the CDR may not be reproducing sound better, just differently. Barry makes a great point about CDR copies being better focused, thus changing the sound...some preferring it over the original. Ron
     
  17. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    BASEMENT & CARDBOARD not a good mix...mold may eventually be a problem. I'd move 'em outta the basement.
     
  18. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    I think the jury is still out, but it has nothing to do with "degradation" or error correction. The integrity of the digital data on nearly all CDs is perfect. CD players generally don't have any programs pulling the data off of the disc.

    The best theory I've seen is that the way the data is physically written on the CD can affect how the servo reacts, which can then cause voltage fluctuations which then affect the DAC. Paper here:

    Paper: Sonic Differences between identical CDs

    It has *nothing* to do with the data itself. That's why a copy of a "bad" disc could indeed sound better than the original.

    All of that said, I've never heard this phenomena myself, so...

    Barry, have you ever looked at that paper?
     
  19. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    They could indeed be "better" - see the link I posted.

    Of course, this is also player dependent - some players won't have this problem (or as much of a problem).
     
  20. Dave

    Dave Esoteric Audio Research Specialistâ„¢

    Location:
    B.C.
    Hi Barry,

    My experiences have been the opposite when played back through my main system so I gotta ask...

    What extraction and burning programs are you exactly using where you hear no difference between the original and the CD-R?

    FWIW I use an old Plextor burner (12/10/32A and use 1X only for burning ;) ) and Exact Audio Copy (EAC).

    Signed,
    The guy who has yet to hear a perfect duplicate with any consunmer ripping/burning program.
     
  21. bdiament

    bdiament Producer, Engineer, Soundkeeper

    Location:
    New York
    Hi brainwashed and lukpac,

    When comparing the CD-R to the original master and finding it to sound more like the original than pressings made from the same master, my view is that "better" is more accurate (or "more accurate" is better ;-} ).

    My views on CD-R are based more on comparison with pressings made from the same "master" than from CD-R copies of pressings. I believe this gives a clearer picture of the capabilities of CD-R as a medium.

    If the CD-R is truly better focused than the pressed CD from which it was copied, this suggests to me there are factors in playback that effect what we hear from each disc. Remember we're not comparing data or numbers on playback, we're comparing the entire chain which decodes the data (or numbers) and the conversion to audio.


    Just checked. It looks familiar, like I've read it before. I've printed it out for reading later.

    Barry
    www.barrydiamentaudio.com
    www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
     
  22. bdiament

    bdiament Producer, Engineer, Soundkeeper

    Location:
    New York
    Hi Dave,

    To be clear (sorry if I wasn't), I never said I couldn't hear a difference between the original and the CD-R. (I'm assuming you mean original master.) What I said was a well burned CD-R sounds much more like the original master than a replicated CD.

    It is always a pleasure to go back to the hard disk and listen to the original after I've gotten used to listening to the CD or even the CD-R.

    I burn discs using Peak Pro XT 5.2 on my Mac (which during burns, sits on multiple axis vibration isolation devices of my own design).

    Barry
    www.barrydiamentaudio.com
    www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
     
  23. Dave

    Dave Esoteric Audio Research Specialistâ„¢

    Location:
    B.C.
    Thanks Barry, I understand now. :thumbsup:
     
  24. stereoptic

    stereoptic Anaglyphic GORT Staff

    Location:
    NY
    Why? Did the third copy change it to 'Eldorado'? :laugh:
     
    Larry Mc likes this.
  25. kevin5brown

    kevin5brown Analog or bust.

    Sorry, I'm still not buying it. :) 1) If the data is identical, then it is a known fact that it's easier for a player to see the difference in reflection between the pits and plateaus on an Al (std pressed CD) than any CD-R material on the face of the planet. 2) Then, even *if* there could be any difference after that, it would likely have to be due to jitter, and there's no way I can see the jitter of a CD-R burned disc being better than an Al pressed CD, because of #1.

    Any one ever do a blind A/B/X test to prove or disprove this?

    Or, any other possible explanations?

    I have burned probably over 200 CD-R's over the past 5 years. Taiyo Yuden, the Fuji's made in Japan, Taiwan Riteks, etc. I have only ever heard copies that approach the sound of the original. A lot of times, no detectable difference, but never is the CD-R better. I also use EAC, and CDRWin to burn (and also at a much slower speed than the drive's maximum rated speed).

    In fact, a few years ago I came across an article once with detailed spectrum analysis that in that case, proved that the CD-R was not as good a copy as the original. 'Course, I'll never be able to find that now... (Maybe it was through the CDR FAQ people.)

    I can certainly believe that a CD-R copy could be perceived as "different" than the original, and that some people might prefer that, but I'm still looking for any technical reason as to why a "copy" could ever be *better* than the original. Especially when you consider the optics involved.

    I read the article too. (Good article. No mumbo jumbo handwaving pseudo science, but real nuts and bolts.) Well, skimmed it, I do need to read it in more detail, but while they put forth a lot of reasons why discs *could* sound different (but a lot of them aren't applicable to comparing an Al pressed disc to a burned CD-R anyway), the conclusion was that their listening tests in fact didn't show any differences that were detectable. And that was between discs where differences were *specifically* introduced to try and spot such a difference.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine