Burned Audio CD-Rs

[papaya86 0]

man u sound like your a software pirate

Edited April 14, 2005 by papaya86

[nakedtoes 0]

I thought black CD sound better of the laser able to pick out the data will less reflection thus sound better..

[Absolute0 0]

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.

Edited April 14, 2005 by Absolute0

[Mackie 0]

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.

Edited April 15, 2005 by Mackie

[pcking 0]

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.

[pcking 0]

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 ?

[Mackie 0]

- 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.

 

[pcking 0]

- 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 ?

[idkfa 0]

I guess how well a CD sounds is how well the CD reflects data to your CDP's lens eh? A stock pressed CD can be quiet bad sounding at times. I try to use the best CD-R and slowest burn rate to ensure a good burn/copy. Nowdays the 52X burning CDRoms are fast, but they do produce errors. I still prefer my 1X burn speed.

 

Mackie. are you videos of the wedding correctly encoded for VCD playback? What programs do you use for it?

Nowdays lotsa DVD players come with DivX playback. I use them to encode my videos all the time. High quality and works fine.

[Firefox 0]

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.

[pcking 0]

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 !!!

[pcking 0]

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.

[Absolute0 0]

That helped, esp. Firefox's post, thanks.

 

Wrt your analogy, headphones and source material are not exactly similar. Headphones have different sonic qualities due to difference in design, specs,etc. which are apparent and indisputable, but the variation in source material is less obvious, or even minimal in terms of the data.

 

In essence, the higher end headphones is able to pick up nuances that the lower end one doesn't because of superior construction, etc. but being able to hear more details on a copy compared to the original using the exact same setup and presumably identical 0's and 1's must be due to some intrinsic qualities of the copy, which Firefox has very helpfully explained.

 

I have learnt quite a great deal from the thread, thanks!

[Firefox 0]

Anyway, to finish off, here's a simplified guide for duplicating audio CD's.

 

Try to use a better quality CDR.

You need not get a Mitsui Gold.

Simply any Taiyo Yuden Gold or Ricoh Gold CDR's will do. As will other brands that have these 2 companies OEM for them.

It's worth the slightly higher price.

 

 

Read & Burn at low speeds.

Have the drive reading the source disc do so at lower speeds, I'd recommend 4x or 8x. You'll get a more accurate copy that way.

Similarly, when burning the CDR, use 4x or 8x. These 2 speeds are low enough not to suffer from issues with high speed burning.

At the same time, they're not so low as to cause failure/ errors on high-speed dyes.

Reading to an image on the harddisk before burning is a very good idea. Copying on-the-fly is not a good idea.

 

Software.

Use CloneCD 3.xx if you can find it. Otherwise, Alcohol 120% is an equally good alternative. These will allow bit-for-bit copying.

Using EAC to rip to .wav files and then burning a compilation will change the characteristics. Therefore, I can't recommend doing so.

 

Hardware.

If you have an older 12x/ 24x/ 40x Teac CD-RW drive, use it! The last 52x burner from Teac is not the same. It's a cheap Taiwanese OEM and the quality is not as good as the 3 listed above. TDK and Yamaha burners seem to be okay from my experience. Avoid BenQ/ Acer like a plague.

[evil-zen 0]

interesting article