pcking

After many good feedbacks from friends who have requested me to build for them these USB cables, I have decided to intro to XP forumers here that a simple upgrade of your USB cable can yield significant improvments to your computer audio playback.

1) <<Value for Money >>

Silver Plated wires with standard USB connectors - 1m length at $88

2) <<High-end but yet affordable >>

7N Pure Silver UP-OCC wires with gold USB connectors - 1m length at $368

Other customised lengths and special request for data only USB cable (without +5v supply) are welcome.

3 days full refund if you are not satisfied with your purchase. (cables returned must be in good condition and not tampered with) ;D

Kindly IM or whatsapp me at 9837OneOne93 if interested.

Selling the above unit & bundle with a Stablised AC adaptor that acts as an ac source & charger. More info here

Items are in good working condition with no scratches on casing.

Interested parties kindly email me at pcking@singnet.com.sg with your *REASONABLE* offers.

Thanks.

I was under the impression that clarity and detail are linked to resolution? All that jargon.

Yes U r right in that sense that higher resolution does results in more clarity n details for example for the same album which comes in a normal CD n in XRCD format, of course the XRCD will have more details n clarity.

 

 

What I meant by saying that the burnt CDRs does not have "better" resolution is that the whole process of duplication does not result in additional "bits" of data being burnt into the CDRs. The "bits" r essentially the same as what the original contains. If the burnt CDRs were to contain more "bits" than the original, then I would say the softwares or hardwares that r used have "altered" the original sound by creating some other "effects" that may "colour" the original recordings.

 

But the process/method featured in this thread is to copy exactly what the original contains n not adding more "bits"

 

As to why the CDRs can sound "better", since both r having the same no. of "bits" of data is actually mentioned in the article.

 

So am I right to say that your drift is that there is no increase in actual resolution, but better details and clarity (which are linked to resolution)? That was actually the question I was trying to ask, as I see that hard to comprehend. I can understand why a CD-R could sound "better", but not how there can be improved details and clarity without increased resolution. I didn't manage to finish reading the article btw, but browsed through more than half and it wasn't mentioned. It's a long read.

 

Also I am skeptical that the duplication process is 100% accurate (even DNA replication isn't that accurate!), so colouration is a possibility even without the addition of more "bits". It's like in DNA replication, changes can occur if a base is substituted by another (one "bit" of info substituted by another "bit" of diff. content due to imperfect duplication), not necessarily only when there's insertion/deletion. I'm sure this analogy is not perfectly apt, but that's a question I have in mind.

How about this analogy ?

Playback the same Original CD or CD-R on the same setup except using different headphones.

Why one headphone can sound "cleaner, clearer n more details heard" than other headphone ?

Does it mean that a higher-end headphone can produce higher resolution thus better details ??? Same CD should have same resolution rite ???

Sometimes even different original CDs of the same album, i.e same album but different batches from the same location or same album from different pressings from different countries can also sound quite different.

Post by Firefox has summarized the main essence of this topic.

There are 2 main factors as to why CD's and CDR's sound different.

 

1) Readability.

 

2) Servo-mechanisms.

 

Readability is affected by:

 

How well the original CD is pressed. A CD from a smaller production run is likely to be of better quality than one from a very large production run (mainly popular music CD's).

The reason is that CD's are pressed from what is called a glass master. The first glass master is cut out via high precision machinery using lasers. This is called the 'father'.

CD's on a limited production run usually use the 'father' only. Their quality is more of less ensured. On larger production runs, you can't just use the 'father' as it'd be too slow to stamp out CD's.

Hence, more glass masters have to be produced. Unfortunately, these 2nd generation glass masters (called 'son') are not made using the precision machinery.

They're casted from molds which are made from the 'father'. The 'son' will therefore be degraded. If more are required, you'll have the grandfather, father & son etc..

This will affect the quality of the CD's being produced.

 

For CDR's, the readability is affected by the CD writer/ burner and the quality of the CDR.

A CDR burnt at low speeds is usually but not always. As CD burners get faster, newer burning strategy dyes are developed to allow the CDR's to match the high-speed writing.

That's to say, a high speed CDR would not appreciate being burnt at 1x or 2x. Doing so would result in a less readable CDR.

I'd recommend burning audio CD duplicates at 4x or 8x only. These 2 speeds are low enough not to suffer from issues associated with higher speed burning.

By burning at lower speeds, the pits formed are more rectangular than being like trapeziums. Meaning that they're easier for drives to read and are closer to what pits on a good stamped CD would be like.

Another factor is the type of dye and reflective layer used. Not all dyes & reflective layers behave the same.

The various combinations are:

Cyanine w/ gold (slight blue-greenish hue; later generations are greenish in hue), Cyanine w/ silver (bluish hue);

 

Pathlocyanine w/ silver (silver hue), Pathlocyanine w/ gold (light greenish hue), Pathlocyanine w/ real 24K gold (Found only on archival grade Mitsui Gold and Kodak Ultima Gold media; Deep green-gold hue);

 

Early generation AZO dyes (Deep blue hue; AZO dyes are used only on Mitsubishi & Verbatim media; Verbatim is a subsidary of Mitsubishi), later generation AZO dyes (Super-AZO, Sonic-AZO etc; Light blue hue similar to cyanine w/ silver)

 

Pathocynanine w/ gold offers one of, if not the, best quality and readability. I've never had a Mitsui Gold CDR fail to be read on any drive/ player. Even 14 yr.o. players read them like a charm. They're also probably the longest lasting medias around. In laboratory tests, they can withstand the equivalent of more than a 100 years of environmental exposure easily. The top grade Mitsui Archival media (now known as MAM-A) which uses real 24K gold withstands 300 years of exposure.

 

In my own private listening tests the following medias performed from best to worse:

 

1) Mitsui Gold (Indistinguishable from original media). Expensive media, no longer sold in Sg.

My last purchase cost $1.10/ pc. This pricing is w/o jewel cases and is the same whether you take 50pc/ 100 pc bulk pack.

Mitsui bulk pack archival grade is approximately S$2.00/ pc for 50/ 100 packs online, not inclusive of S&H.

 

2) Ricoh Gold & Taiyo Yuden Gold (Both Pathlocyanine w/ gold). Very subtle differences from original. Best value for money. Their CDR's can be had for about $0.40/ pc. Most people would not notice the differences between originals and these.

 

3) Mitsubishi 1st generation Phono Super-AZO & Metal-AZO media.

 

4) Mitsubishi later generation Super-AZO, Blue diamond AZO & Sonic-AZO media, SmartBUY coloured, SmartBuy Platinum & SmartBuy Grade A gold media. The Smartbuys use Cynanine dyes with silver for the coloured and Platinums, Gold for the Grade A Gold media. These are pretty much dirt cheap but of reasonably good quality. I'd draw the line here as the minimum grade of CDR's you'd want to use.

 

5) TDK Gold, Emtec (BASF), Prodisc & other various super-cheap media. These are truely blacksheeps. The layers peel easily and they should not be used for archiving/ backing-up any data for more than 1 month. Readability is also particularly poor.

I personally use an Emtec disc for testing old & 2nd hand players. If the player is able to read a well-burnt Emtec, it's lens is basically in very good condition.

Some lens simply won't read these medias. My Panasonic DVD player when new rejected the Emtec outright.

 

 

 

The next main factor which I'm to discuss is the CD player servo-mechanism.

Different CD players use different transport mechanisms, lens, servo-control chips and power supply.

A good transport mechanism will provide a stable platform and this can help the lens better read difficult discs. Similarly, a well designed & built lens will be able to read a disc better.

The most important factor is actually the power supply and servo-control chips and mechanism. These react differently to the type of disc inserted into the player. All the various components of the servo-mech. pollute the power supply. The manner in which the power supply is polluted depends on how the servo-mech. runs.

Since it runs differently with each inserted CDR or pressed CD, that's where the sonic differences come in.

If the mech. pollutes the power in a spectrum outside of the analog section domain, then you'd not hear a degraded sound.

However, if the inserted media causes the mech. to react in such a manner as to pollute the power in the same spectrum as the analog domain, you'd deem that disc to have a worse sound.

Next, you have the power supply. If the power supply does not feedback the pollution to the transformer or mains (highly unlikely situation), you'd not hear the difference between a CDR or pressed CD of equal readability. As I've stated this is extremely unlikely. However, the degree of pollution varies very largely.

 

Most CD players use a single transformer to supply power to both the mechanisms, lens, display, digital section & analog section. By sharing a transformer, the degree of pollution is increased.

Worse yet, most people regard toroids as superior to E/R/C core transformers. This is not true.

Toroids are more efficently BUT they're the most reactive. Almost all pollution will pass back to the other windings (used for the other sections, especially the analog output section) as well as the mains.

 

Take a look at the high-end CD players. Most of them use seperate and/ or non-toroidal transformers for the servo-controller and digital sections and the analog sections. An example can be seen in the Cary 303 player. It uses an EI core transformer as well as a R-core transformer for the different sections.

 

 

These are the main factors as to why CDR's sound different from pressed CD's and also why pressed CD's from different countries do sound different.

The odds are that factories in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand etc. receive 2nd or 3rd generation glass masters. Whereas in countries like Japan, UK & USA, the factories are the ones producing and using the 1st generation glass masters.

Excellent short article that sumarrizes the 2 main points on why CD-R can sound better than Original CD.

As I am in the IT industry, when I was first told about this, I swear that this can never be ture as digital data r nothing but Os & 1s. So if the burnt CD-R contains exactly the same Os & 1s as found on the Original CD, when playback on the same setup at the same volume, how can the CD-R sound better ?

Until I heard it myself n going more in-dept on this topic that I realise the logic behind.

Well Done !!!

- The CD-Rs are in perfect condition.

- Video and sound recording of wedding ceremony

- tried on pc and vcd/dvd player. doesnt work. pc doesn't indicate data file at all.

I guess the CD-R is supposed to be a VCD ?

Have U ever tried playing back on a PC before it fail to read ?

Sorry to hear about your wedding CDR.  Most probably it's either due to lousy media or storage conditions.

 

Btw, I don't see any disc rot and my discs were properly stored. Any chance of retrieving data and burnt onto another disc or is the data permanently lost?

 

Ah...always not too old to learn something new but I'm skeptical of how a conventional pc can create better copies than a commercial machinery which is huge.....well at least during my training stint with Trio-Kenwood Japan more than a decade ago. I reckon probability of an exact copy of the orginal cd is higher than one which sounds truly better. If otherwise, it could be the improved reading/tracking of cdp laser pickup on CDR media rather than the copying process. Just my opinion and I must admit my knowledge in PC audio is rather limited.

R your CD-Rs scratched ?

What is the data in it ? Music or Video ??

What drives have U tried to read them on n what's the result/message given ?

man u sound like your a software pirate

R U refering to me ???

If yes, can enlighten me why do U say so ???

Not promoting piracy but rather pursuing Audio Fidelity.

U have to buy an Original CD in order to do a good copy. Some people who want to preserve the Original CDs by not using them for playback will make a CD-R copy for playback instead. And they certainly want the CD-Rs to sound as good if not better than what the Original sounds.

As for myself, the reason I went into this was bcos it was a hassle to always remember to bring CDs to n fro from home n my car. The head-units/changers in cars r using slot-in n not tray transport. So the tendency that discs may be scratched is high. Furthermore the heat built up in car under hot afternoon sun may damage the discs. So the most viable solution is to copy CD-Rs for playback in the car instead of using the Originals.

Let's try this......... I printed a document from PC and then used the latest state of the art copier to make a fresh copy it. Is there any chance of this copy looking "better" than the original? ** shrug shrug **

 

One more thing. Data burnt onto cd roms do not last as long as cds made commercially. I found out the hard way when one of the cd roms of my entire wedding went blank. The data was unrecoverable.

 

However, original cds can sound inferior to burnt-in ones if they are either scratched or dirty whilest the latter are fresh copies.

Your analogy is interesting but not appropriate in this context.

The theories n reasons, I believed evil-zen has already more or less answered U.

CD-ROM is not = CD-R.

CD-ROMs and DVD-ROMs are similar in that they are replicated discs—that is, the data are physically pressed into the disc when it is manufactured. ROMs are generally mass-produced and contain music, video, computer applications, or interactive games.

CD-R, DVD-R, DVD+R discs are usually categorized by the metal and dye types used in the disc. These discs use gold, silver, or a silver alloy for the reflective layer instead of aluminum as in ROM discs. Gold will not corrode but is expensive. Silver is more reflective and cheaper than gold but is susceptible to corrosion if exposed to sulfur dioxide, an air pollutant that can penetrate the disc in the same way oxygen can—with moisture. Manufacturers use various silver alloys to help inhibit silver corrosion, and most R discs available today use a silver alloy reflective layer. The chance of silver corrosion from exposure to sulfur dioxide is less than the chance of aluminum oxidation caused by high humidity. Nonetheless,

keeping the disc in a filtered “clean air†environment can minimize

or eliminate its exposure to sulfur dioxide. With proper storage,

these discs will outlast the technology.

Manufacturers claim that CD-R and DVD-R discs have a shelf life of 5 to 10 years before recording, and under recommended storage conditions, CD-R, DVD-R, and DVD+R discs should have a life expectancy of 100 to 200 years or more.

Sorry to hear about your wedding CDR. Most probably it's either due to lousy media or storage conditions.

isnt it best to listen to music the way it was meant/made to be heard instead? but all i've got to say is all these audiophiles have too much time and money to spare

Yes U r absolutely right !

What this whole thread is about is to be able to recreate exactly or near to exactly how the recording was supposed to sound when it was recorded.

It's not about adding "colour" or artificially alter the recordings to make them sound better.

But the point here is the Original CD might not be able to do it's job as well as a burnt CDR. As to why, it's also already mentioned in the article.

Unless the Original CD was perfectly pressed, if not chances r a burnt CDR might sound better.

I was under the impression that clarity and detail are linked to resolution? All that jargon.

Yes U r right in that sense that higher resolution does results in more clarity n details for example for the same album which comes in a normal CD n in XRCD format, of course the XRCD will have more details n clarity.

What I meant by saying that the burnt CDRs does not have "better" resolution is that the whole process of duplication does not result in additional "bits" of data being burnt into the CDRs. The "bits" r essentially the same as what the original contains. If the burnt CDRs were to contain more "bits" than the original, then I would say the softwares or hardwares that r used have "altered" the original sound by creating some other "effects" that may "colour" the original recordings.

But the process/method featured in this thread is to copy exactly what the original contains n not adding more "bits"

As to why the CDRs can sound "better", since both r having the same no. of "bits" of data is actually mentioned in the article.

I think burned audio CD-Rs can sound "better" than the original, as "better" is subjective. There might be "distortions" (not necessarily a bad thing, such as in added warmth) during the buring process which one might perceive as an improvement. Nonetheless, I seriously doubt there can be an increase in actual (possibly perceived though) resolution which makes the copy sound "better".

I wouldn't say the burnt CDRs has better resolution than the originals but somehow the clarity n details were 2 of the main improvements.

In one of the blind tests, my friend just couldn't decide which one was the better sounding one even after repeatedly changing of the discs. Finally he chose the burnt CDR as he felt that it has a lower noise floor than the original.

PCking, care to tell me the make of your CD-R media? And what CD were you burning? Details can be interesting for me.

I have tried only 3 types of "black" CDRs. Melody, Sigma & Platinium.

So far I find the Platinium one sounded best to my ears but unfortunately, I can't seem to find them in SLS anymore.

If U need pics, I'll try to take some.

These r the few albums that I can still remember which were used in the blind shoot-out.

1. Eagles - Hell freezes Over (XRCD)

2. 25th Anniversary - Teresa Teng (XRCD)

3. Close to You - Susan Wong (Normal CD but 96 khz/24 bit mastering)

4. Jazz at Pawn Shop - Proprius Records (Normal CD)

Don't know if these r your "genre" of music.

Wonder if this applies to DVD and video as well. Is there any black dvd by any chance?

Whether it works for DVD (audio n video), I don't know but don't think so.

And as of now, there isn't any blank "black" DVD medias.

So far all the available DVD-/+ R/RW r all having blue dyes n there is no reason why they want to use black substrate instead of clear ones.

The reason why black CDRs emerged was bcos of PS1 games.

Don't know if this is the appropriate channel to post this thread but since U have to use a PC to do the copying, I guessed it should be here in PC Audio.

I have personally tried it n even did blind shootout with a few friends who eventually admit defeat with my burnt CD-Rs vs their originals. All the albums used r my friends' favourite CDs which they r very familiar with. N the shoot-outs r done on their own set-ups where all settings remain the same while changing the discs.

So far all 3 of them chose my burnt CD-Rs as the "better" sounding ones.

Believe it or not, this is the article written by a net friend of mine Gary.

In Quest of Absolute Fidelity

Enjoy !

I'm not asking U to change your source but ask your GF to listen to a MP3 and pcdp with real line-output connected to your system. Let's see if the difference is more discernible to her. If so, GIGO is the way to go!

 

Oh btw, I sold the Porta Corda II and kept the PA2V2 as I prefer its sonic traits.

Will try to find time to do it but I fully understand what U meant by GIGO

Of course with a "lousy" source, no matter how good your interconnect, amp n headphones r, the SQ will not be improved. In fact my experience is if the source is "lousy", using high-end stuffs will reveal even more of the "flaws" as all the "details" r greatly emphasized.

By the way, what interconnects r U using now ? Any cable which is significantly better than the Belden 1696A ?

So is your PA2V2 with the "upgraded" caps ?

Thanks.

Did a blind test by asking my GF to listen to her favourite tracks while maintaining all the parameters n changing only the interconnect.

Unfortunately, she was not able to really differentiate between the stock n the DIY interconnect. Sometimes she chose the DIY one, somtimes the "stock" one.

Hence this shows that the "improvement" is not significant enough for casual listeners to immediately hear the differences.

So now I am hunting for even better cables that can be used for a 3.5mm to 3.5mm interconnect that will sound significantly better than the stock cable where even the most casual listener will hear the differences.

So any recommendation for better cables n where to get them ? Thanks.

Hi All,

 

I have replace my alkaline batteries with rechargable batteries and it work. The hissing sound is gone and according to Gary , he said that the amplifier was designed to work with the lower voltage of rechargeable batteries. Below is my setup , please let me know your views.

 

Hi, glad that U have solved your hissing problem and equally delighted that I have correctly pin-point the cause.

If U r keen to further improve your setup, U can take a look here.

PA2V2 (new version with upgraded 470 n 2200 caps)

 

Do U mean to say the later batches (for instance yours) are upgraded with these caps or are U referring to changes from Version 1?

Hi Mackie,

according to Gray's website, (Paragraph 4), the initial batches of PA2V2 were equppied with 220 n 1000 uFs caps. I do not know excatly when did he "upgraded" all the caps in the recent line of PA2V2 to Panasonic caps of 470 n 2200 uFs. I am glad mine came with the new higher capacity caps.

My amp is no 682 so I presume those amps later than mine should be already equipped with the Panasonic caps.

As to exactly when or starting from which amp did he start using the Panasonic Caps, I don't know.

Have U sold yours ?

Just finished my DIY 3.5 to 3.5mm interconnect using Canare F-12 plugs n Belden 1696A cable with normal 40/60 solder.

As the 1696A is only a 2 conductor cable, I used the shielding as the ground, blue as the left n white as the right channel.

My humble setup:

Creative Zen Micro with EQ off at volume 18 ---> Interconnect ---> PA2V2 (new version with upgraded 470 n 2200 caps) ---> Shure E2c

**************************************************************

Findings done immediately after the DIY interconnect was completed.

Comparing my DIY interconnect against the "stock" interconnect that came bundled with the PA2V2. All volumes maintained at the same levels.

**************************************************************

Album used: ULTIMATE DEMONSTRATION DISC (Chesky Records) See here

Ripped using EAC as wave format n also ripped another copy using Windows Media Player 10 as MP3 (192kbps)

Results r similar regardless of whether the tracks r in MP3 or waves.

Bass: Cleaner, deeper bass n undistorted

Mids: Vocals are more natural sounding with more reverb n clearer

Highs: Most of the harsh highs (sssssssssss) heard using the "stock" interconnect r no longer apparent yet details like symbols, tickling etc r still clearly heard with much more clarity

NB: Unfortunately handphone interference is still inherent but much softer now.

Tonight I will ask my GF to do a blind test to see whether the improvement is significant enough for casual listeners to detect.

I have no regrets spending my time n money on this small DIY project. The sound quality improvement is definitely worthwhile, even though most may think that it may not make a difference since my source is just a MP3 player.

Lastly, I highly recommend this DIY "upgrade" to anyone who r still using those "stock" ready-made slim black 3.5 to 3.5mm if they r serious in improving their listening experience.

PCOCC我们这里叫无氧铜。就是用没回收过的高品质铜线制成的电缆。

你指的是否是OFC = Oxygen Free Copper ???

Hi,

 

I have just purchase the Pocket Amp 2. I inserted 2 AA batteries however i could hear hissing sound ( identicle to the sound when you are tuning the radio) when the volume is at minimum. I use the normal lithium batteries. Do you guys who uses this amp encounter the same problem? Do you think the problem wil be resolve when if i were to use rechargeable batteries ? Please kindly enlighten me. Thanks

 

To my understanding, it's not stated on the website that "normal" 1.5volts AA batteries can be used. it's best to use rechargeable 1.2volts batt.

Also check your interconnect cable as mine doesn't have hiss even at max. volume.

Firstly, I wonder if its feasible to upgrade the cable for your setup since the source is a MP3 player. Garbage in, garbage out applies.

 

If U are firm on this, Canare, Belden, Klotz microphone cable (3-core) are good choices.

 

Silver solder may make a difference to some with perky ears but normally too subtle to others.

 

Visit Robert at LHS, 2nd floor Sim Lim Tower for help/purchase of plugs, cables and termination.

thanks Mackie.

Just want to give it a try as the stock cable seems to be of very "normal" quality.

Although my source is only a Zen Micro, I usually encode MP3 at very high bitrates n sometimes even just dump as wave format.

Robert of LHS recommended me the Belden 1696A but it is only a 2 conductors cable.

So I intend to use the shielding as the ground. Is it feasible ?

Hi Guys,

in the midst of DIY a 3.5mm to 3.5mm interconnect for my MP3 player to my PA2V2 to replace the "stock" one.

I have nailed down the connectors to be used - Canare F-12 plugs

So asking for guru's advice on which is the most ideal (interms of cost/performance ratio) cable to be used for this purpose.

Since the length will be short (maybe half a meter), can afford to buy slightly more costly cable.

Can a cable with only 2 cores like the Belden 1696A be used ?

Reason is a 3.5mm stereo plug has left, right n ground (total 3 channels)

So if a 2 core cable is used, 1 for right n 1 for left, then ground how ???

Lastly, does the solder like those with silver content makes a difference when we DIY cables ?

Thanks.

Bought on 14th March 2005 at $59 from Jade Gift Shop at Shaw.

Selling off as GF is not used to In-earbuds n prefer normal earphones.

Specifications :

Lateral, In-the-ear, Closed, Dynamic Earplug System

11.5mm Neodymium Magnetic Drivers

OFC; Neck Chain, 0.5m (remote friendly) Cord & 1.0m Extension

Gold-plated, Stereo straight mini plug

16 ohms at 1 kHz impedance

104 dB/mW sensitivity

200mW Power handling capacity

Wide 6 - 25,000Hz Freq. Response

Supplied Accessories :

1.0m Extension Cord, 3 pairs Different Size Caps for Inner Plugs ( S, M, L ), Soft Carrying Pouch.

Looking at $45 or nearest best offer.

See Review here

Interested pls sms your offer to 98371193.

Thanks.

You can try calling or emailing Sony Service Centre to enquire if you can order the earpads as spare parts. I've got my Eggo MDR-D22SL earpads replaced in this manner too.

Thanks for your advice. I have got the quote from Sony n will be going down to place an order.