New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Furutech PC-2 Disc Treatment - Page 3  

post #31 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by LawnGnome View Post
I don't care what people SAY they hear.

You can MEASURABLY find that burnt CD's have way more errors.

Do some damn research. You don't know a damn thing on the actual technology. If you did, you would know better.

http://www.digitalfaq.com/media/dvdmedia.htm
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA3...kK&output=html
(read for a few pages.)

From that site.
I can present another text that proves that the so called precise pits are in fact convex and NOT rectangular in shape. This you can find out under a microscope. That text sounds more like a sales rep.; they know pressing is faster then burning. So make people believe that burning is crap and faster and cheaper pressing is better.

I actually own plextor burners, do you?! They are known for the best in the field, especially the older cdburners wich use real glass and burn deeper.

Only burning at fast speeds over 1 speed will get worse results. I can fake proof llike that myself, burning at 48 speed and stating it's crap. Burn at 1 speed and compare, you will be chocked.

Oh, and do you treally think that you actually are the only one "knowing" anything?!



I allready know that you are one of those that listen with their eyes, instead of ears.
post #32 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by tourmaline View Post
I can present another text that proves that the so called precise pits are in fact convex and NOT rectangular in shape. This you can find out under a microscope. That text sounds more like a sales rep.; they know pressing is faster then burning. So make people believe that burning is crap and faster and cheaper pressing is better.

I actually own plextor burners, do you?! They are known for the best in the field, especially the older cdburners wich use real glass and burn deeper.

Only burning at fast speeds over 1 speed will get worse results. I can fake proof llike that myself, burning at 48 speed and stating it's crap. Burn at 1 speed and compare, you will be chocked.

Oh, and do you treally think that you actually are the only one "knowing" anything?!




I allready know that you are one of those that listen with their eyes, instead of ears.

Post your support that burning is better than pressing or you might as well quit talking. Because you have no PROOF, EVIDENCE, OR SUPPORT.
post #33 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by LawnGnome View Post
Post your support that burning is better than pressing or you might as well quit talking. Because you have no PROOF, EVIDENCE, OR SUPPORT.
Are pressed CDs better than burned CD-Rs?

The answer to this question depends on 2 factors; what is the quality of the CD-R writer and what is the quality of the CD-R disc. Assuming you have a professional CD-R writer and the media you are using is professional quality, there is no difference between pressed CDs and burned CD-Rs. This will vary depending on the burn speed.

link:
http://www.microboards.com/article.p...02554470/print

Everything about pressing and burning. I haven't seen any proof from you.

So, i suggest you quit talking. That link you provided is about dvd media and it is known ( i have even a pdf made by your government(they wanted to know wich media to use for longterm archive) that cd's will hold much longer then dvd's.) that cd media IS actually better then dvd media.

You don't know anything about it.

Another very interesting read for you, where they allready conducted tests.
http://www.iar-80.com/page57.html

excerpt of that link:

"A fascinating footnote adds even further evidence. Thus far, in this example, we've spoken only about there being a sonic difference between original and copy. The fascinating footnote is that the copy sounds not merely different than the original, but also better than the original. How on earth can a copy sound better than the original? Haven't we been rigorously taught that a copy, no matter how nearly perfect, can at best only hope to approach the quality of the original from beneath, but never surpass it?
Well, here it turns out that we independently know a good reason why the copy could sound better than the original. The original has pit edges stamped out in a molding process, and by a worn mold at that. These molded plastic pit edges are likely to be dull and rounded corners, rather than sharp corners. And even the rounding of the edge is likely to be somewhat wavy, sloppy, and irregular, rather than clean and straight. All these properties of the molded type of pit edge conspire to produce an inferior quality eye pattern. On the other hand, the copy has pit edges freshly engraved by a laser, one of the sharpest cutting tools we have. So the pit edges on the copy are likely to be much sharper, and also much cleaner and straighter, thus producing a superior quality eye pattern when played back by your CD player.
Note that the copy is bit for bit virtually identical to the original, in the digital data represented on the disc. But the actual manner in which that data is read is as an analog signal. And, even though the two discs might be digitally the same, they are not analog-ly the same. When it comes to what you hear as music, what counts of course is the signal picked up by your CD player at the actual real time of playback. The CD copy puts out a better analog pit edge signal than the CD original, so what guides and determines the quality of the music you hear when you play back the copy is the quality of the analog pit edge signal on the copy, not the quality of the analog pit edge signal on the original. You don't listen to the music while your CD burner (say your home PC) copied the disc; you only listen to it later. Your CD burner first read the original analog pit edges, then interpreted them into digital form, and then laser cut a fresh CD with better quality analog pit edges, which in turn give you a better quality eye pattern at time of actual music listening.
Your CD burner executed an analog-to-digital-to-analog conversion, thereby converting an inferior analog pit edge signal into a superior one. If the new analog pit edges were created as an analog-to-analog copy, then the truism would probably still hold, that the copy cannot be any better than the original. But here the analog pit edges represent digital representations of music amplitude. So, by converting the poor quality analog pit edges to the digital form they're supposed to represent, your CD burner then has a chance to freshly create better quality pit edges as better analog representations of the digital representation (note our intentional double cascading of the concept of representation).
By making a laser cut copy, you are trading one analog pit edge for a better one, effectively trading one instance of an analog medium for another better one. That's again just like the good old days of analog vinyl LPs, when you would trade a vinyl LP from mass pressing run, made on cheap reground vinyl, for an LP made on small custom run from premium virgin vinyl, which gave you a sharper, cleaner groove for a higher quality analog input signal. This means that you can profitably copy all of your CD library onto cheap CD blanks, play the copies in you CD player, and hear better music.
This additional fact, that the copy not only sounds different but also actually sounds better than the original CD, is dramatic strong further evidence of our finding in this chapter, that quality of pit edge, which is critical to determining the quality of the eye pattern, is important to the ultimate sound you hear. Laser media, in spite of their touted purported digital nature, must indeed be vulnerable to the analog quality of this analog eye pattern signal, which depends upon the analog quality of the analog pit edges.
It's also worth noting here (in passing at this point) a fact which will be amplified upon below. The CD burner presumably was able to read all the amplitude data correctly from the original CD, even with its inferior quality pit edges (that's why it was able to make a correct bit-for-bit copy of the digital data represented on the original CD by the analog pit edges). We can deduce from this that the reason, why music from your CD player is vulnerable to quality differences in the input analog eye pattern, cannot be that poor quality eye patterns somehow cause your CD player to get the amplitude data wrong for its re-creation of your music. In other words, we have abundant anecdotal evidence that a poor quality eye pattern audibly degrades the final music signal, but the reason why this is so cannot be that the amplitude axis of your music signal, as created by your CD player, is somehow wrong due to misinterpretation of this poor quality analog input signal. A poor quality analog eye pattern input signal does not, according to our reasoning here, somehow corrupt the amplitude axis of the music signal you hear (unless the CD is so dirty that your CD player's error correction fails and your CD player has to go into interpolation mode). Well, the music waveform you hear, as created by your CD player, has only two axes. One axis is amplitude and the other axis is time. So, if the amplitude axis cannot be corrupted (except by a very dirty CD), and we know from listening that something is getting corrupted, then it logically follows that it must be the time axis that is getting corrupted. Therefore, this peculiar phenomenon, that a CD copy sounds different from and better than the original, gives us logical evidence to deduce here that the mechanism of CD's analog-like vulnerability to its analog eye pattern input signal must have something to do with corruption of the music's time axis, as the CD player creates that axis for the music you hear."

And last but not least:

"Adding It All Up

If we add up everything we've learned in the four lessons above, it suddenly becomes clear that all kinds of CD tweaks can and indeed should be effective in making a sonic difference. Those who deride CD tweaks as snake oil are actually themselves the peddlers of improbability, or perhaps they naively subscribe to the popular misbelief that bits is bits, that digital is robust if not immune to external influences, and therefore nothing can possibly make any sonic difference. Now we know better. Digital is vulnerable, fragile, and as susceptible to analog external influences as analog ever was. Digital is as fertile a ground for inventive tweaking as the vinyl LP ever was, and legitimately so."
post #34 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by tourmaline View Post
Are pressed CDs better than burned CD-Rs?

The answer to this question depends on 2 factors; what is the quality of the CD-R writer and what is the quality of the CD-R disc. Assuming you have a professional CD-R writer and the media you are using is professional quality, there is no difference between pressed CDs and burned CD-Rs. This will vary depending on the burn speed.

link:
http://www.microboards.com/article.p...02554470/print

Everything about pressing and burning. I haven't seen any proof from you.

So, i suggest you quit talking. That link you provided is about dvd media and it is known ( i have even a pdf made by your government(they wanted to know wich media to use for longterm archive) that cd's will hold much longer then dvd's.) that cd media IS actually better then dvd media.

You don't know anything about it.

You linked to a site which SELLS CD burners.

Maybe you should READ the links I have posted. One of which is from a PUBLISHED work.

But STILL YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE THAN BURNING IS BETTER THAN PRESSING.

I HAVE PROVIDED ARTICLES SHOWING THAT BURNING IS LOWER QUALITY THAN PRESSING.


Also, your second link claims CD's are analog.

Quote:
data on the CD is actually read as analog information by your CD player, which then interprets this analog information to create a digital data stream representation.
When this is untrue.

Quote:
The pits and lands themselves do not directly represent the zeros and ones of binary data. Instead, Non-return-to-zero, inverted (NRZI) encoding is used: a change from pit to land or land to pit indicates a one, while no change indicates a zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ret...ro%2C_inverted
post #35 of 95
OMG, head-fi is turning into audio asylum.

Be nice, peeps.
post #36 of 95
It appears that only a couple of dozen members seem to always get into these disputes, as if they enjoy them.
Please talk facts or opinions that don't berate fellow members, or threads will be closed and bans will be in effect.
post #37 of 95
Thread Starter 
i'm not going to name names, but if like 4-5 people were banned, the cable part of this forum would be normal like the rest of the site.
post #38 of 95
Hi,

There is a lot of conflicting information in this thread. Ironically, most of the information is incorrect on multiple accounts. I will first state the true fasts, in list form. I will then back them up.

1. The Furutech PC-2 optical disc treatment neither helps no harms an optical disc.

2. A high quality burned CD (with both the media and optical drive being high quality and proper settings used) is in most cases of superior quality to a commercial pressed CD.

1. I explained this before but my post was deleted. There are products that exist that are designed to fill in scratches on an optical disc and these do work as long as the protective plastic layer was not actually penetrated. Products such as the Furutech PC-2 claim to be able to improve a CD which is already in perfect condition (no scratches, finger prints, etc...). This is, of course, impossible. It is a liquid that is applied to the exposed protective plastic layer of a CD. In order for it to make any changes, it would have to actually change the bits. Which is impossible on a CD-R and even more impossible on a pressed CD. There are such things as C1 errors, C2 errors (although these should not be present on a quality disc) and jitter, but these are all digital artifacts which are imprinted onto the data layer of the CD and can not be corrected. They are however, corrected by the error correction on a CD player so they are a moot point in the first place. As I said there ARE products which fill in scratches on a CD, but you can't fill in scratches on a CD that has no scratches.

2.
Brand new freshly opened pressed audio CD:


That same CD ripped and burned to a high quality CD-R with a high quality burner with the proper burn settings:


Specifically take note of the C1 errors on the burned CD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vcoheda View Post
i plan to take a bunch of CDs that i am familiar with (5 or so) and make CDR copies of them in WAV format. listen to one track from untreated version. listen to same track with treated version. note any differences. repeat.
I don't want to make any assumptions but unless you are using a high quality CD burner and high quality media, alongside with the proper burning settings (DAO96, speed), then it is very likely that the CD-R copies you make will be of significantly lower quality than the original CD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LawnGnome View Post
Except burned CD's differ GREATLY in quality compared to pressed CD's.

Burned CD's have errors pressed CD's don't. Normally it is not a problem with error correction, but I don't think most audio CD players do that.
If there are any "high end" cd players out there that do not use error correction then they are not high end. Most dvd/vhs combo players from the bluelight special sales at walmart use error correction (the quality of the dac, opamps and other internal parts, however is another story). The opposite of CD-R vs. pressed CDs is actually true, keep reading I explain later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitesymphony View Post
Many people have said that the opposite is true. Their argument is that sometimes, manufacturers skimp on the quality of media and pressing equipment to save money, thus leading to discs with higher jitter during the manufacturing process. So theoretically, re-burning onto a known good CD-R with a well-tested drive is like jitter removal. Some people also believe that the color of the reflective layer makes a difference, and that the normal silver isn't the best.
The color of the reflective layer is based on what dye is used. The only thing it influences is how long the CD-R will last and if certain CD players that were made before CD-Rs came out can play them or not. Unless a CD has some crazy jitter number (like 25%+ then it won't make a difference in any cd player worth it's salt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tourmaline View Post
True, gold disks are best for longterm archive. The best disk were kodak gold disks because they used real pigments in the black ink and thse ink is real black, not brown or something that looks like black.

I also heard that pressing equipment doesn't cut the pits straight and especially good burners burn straight pits, wich sounds better.
Properly made CD-Rs that use a gold recording layer will last considerably longer than most other CD-Rs, that is true. However, a pressed CD will still outlast these gold CDs by a sizable margin. Whether or not your claims about differences in the way pits are imprinted onto a CD are true or not, I do not know, nor do I know where you heard that information. I would be willing to bet however, that it is false (although I do not know for sure). I can tell you that even if it were true -- there are no differences in sound quality. However, even though a pressed CD has more C1 errors than a burned CD, the pressed CD will still outlast any pressed CD because the pressed CD actually has the information "pressed" into the data layer of the cd. A burned cd works off a chemical reaction that creates the data on the CD when the hot laser hits it. After a long enough time, the CD's just "fade" and no longer work. This is pretty much moot though as a quality burned cd will outlast you and quite possibly your offspring if treated properly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LawnGnome View Post
I don't care what people SAY they hear.

You can MEASURABLY find that burnt CD's have way more errors.

Do some damn research. You don't know a damn thing on the actual technology. If you did, you would know better.

http://www.digitalfaq.com/media/dvdmedia.htm
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA3...kK&output=html
(read for a few pages.)
(Notice the codes for most of the "audiophile" level CD-Rs's come from crappy chinese manufacturers.)

From that site.
When in fact almost the complete opposite is true. If you measure the quality yourself (instead of relying on what you read on websites you found on google), you would find that high quality media burned on a high quality drive with the best burn settings actually have comparable jitter and significantly lower C1 errors than pressed CDs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tourmaline View Post
They are known for the best in the field, especially the older cdburners wich use real glass and burn deeper.
Before I comment on this, I would like you to clarify what you mean by older burners using "real glass". Real glass what? Also, if possible, please post the brand and models of some of these higher quality "older burners", I would like to look into them.

NOTE:
If there is any confusion please tell me what it is you would like more information on or what you would like explained better and I would be happy to do so.

EDIT:
I also notice this thread has gone seriously off topic and I won't lie in saying I didn't have a part in it. It should really be split into two threads.
post #39 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcoheda View Post
i'm not going to name names, but if like 4-5 people were banned, the cable part of this forum would be normal like the rest of the site.
Yeah! Let's ban everyone who don't believe what some people do!

We would be just as justified to ban the "other" group of 5 or 6 people.
post #40 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcoheda View Post
so i plan to test it just like i do all my other equipment- by listening to it. i know, a strange concept. people interested in the quality of music judging the music by actually listening to it. bizarre indeed.
I honestly don't get this philosophy when we're still dealing with a digital stream. Why use your ears to compare two bitstreams? They are simply not the proper tool for the job.
post #41 of 95
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 003 View Post
1. The Furutech PC-2 optical disc treatment neither helps no harms an optical disc.
again. that is just your opinion. many people have used this and similar products and found otherwise - that it improved playback. maybe it does so for reasons that you are not thinking of.

Quote:
I don't want to make any assumptions but unless you are using a high quality CD burner and high quality media, alongside with the proper burning settings (DAO96, speed), then it is very likely that the CD-R copies you make will be of significantly lower quality than the original CD.
then i will use only commercial pressings for my test (no copies) and treat one and not the other. that should satisfy at least some people's concerns. i too want to know if it really works. i am not result oriented, as some other people are.
post #42 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by 003 View Post
NOTE:
If there is any confusion please tell me what it is you would like more information on or what you would like explained better and I would be happy to do so.
Thanks for the information, 003!

According to those pictures, while the C1 errors decreased significantly, the jitter increased... maybe not significantly, but the magenta line in the second graph looks like it has more variation than in the first graph. You mentioned that C1 errors weren't a large problem because error correction could take care of them, but is burning to another CD trading C1 errors for jitter that is more difficult to prevent (ex. necessitating the use of a reclocking DAC)?

Also, is there any way you could test the qualities of these CDs in another drive? My (possibly totally off-base) theory is that a CD burned with a particular drive will play back best in that same drive. Using a different drive for both CDs will be good enough for me.
post #43 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcoheda View Post
again. that is just your opinion. many people have used this and similar products and found otherwise - that it improved playback. maybe it does so for reasons that you are not thinking of.



then i will use only commercial pressings for my test (no copies) and treat one and not the other. that should satisfy at least some people's concerns. i too want to know if it really works. i am not result oriented, as some other people are.
Get two copies of the same CD and scan them with Nero CD-DVD speed like I did and create a quality graph on both of them before treating to make sure both are of similar quality before scanning. Then treat one of them and scan both again. You can listen as well but it would be very helpful to post the scans.

Keep in mind many optical drives can't scan for jitter, the BenQ drives which are getting increasingly harder to find as they went under are some of the best scanning drives you can get, specifically the DW1620, DW1640, DW1650 and DW1655.
post #44 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitesymphony View Post
Thanks for the information, 003!

According to those pictures, while the C1 errors decreased significantly, the jitter increased... maybe not significantly, but the magenta line in the second graph looks like it has more variation than in the first graph. You mentioned that C1 errors weren't a large problem because error correction could take care of them, but is burning to another CD trading C1 errors for jitter that is more difficult to prevent (ex. necessitating the use of a reclocking DAC)?

Also, is there any way you could test the qualities of these CDs in another drive? My (possibly totally off-base) theory is that a CD burned with a particular drive will play back best in that same drive. Using a different drive for both CDs will be good enough for me.
Jitter on a CD is not the same as jitter in a digital signal, they are two separate things. Jitter on a cd is literally tiny changes in the speed and position of the laser during the burning process. Any cd error correction will also not be phased by jitter either, on both of the scans the jitter is still extremely low, I have seen commercial pressed CD's with average jitter of over 13% and they play fine.

Now, while the plot of the jitter graph on the burned CD is more jagged than the pressed cd, that does not mean much. I will explain. Also the maximum jitter does not mean anything either, if you look at the graph at the very beginning the jitter line started much higher than the average, and then went down. That is most likely false, just a fluke in the scanning. You can get slightly better or worse jitter results depending on the scanning speed you use, 16x CLV was the overall best and I wanted to keep things consistent. If you compare the average jitter of the two cds, the burned one is just a tiny tiny bit higher, it won't make any difference at all.

Now the reason the line is more jagged on the burned cd is because of the fact that is is burned instead of pressed. When a cd is pressed, the whole thing is imprinted at once, there is no chance for variations like that in the jitter. When it is burned, the cd spins while the laser burns the data to the cd one bit at a time, there is a much bigger opportunity here for the jitter to move up and down slightly as the laser passes over the CD. But if you look at the graph, the differences are tiny, like plus or minus 0.05, which again makes no difference. I have seen pressed CDs that have terrible jitter and the line is jagged like crazy, but they still play fine.

Unfortunately I can't scan in another drive. The one I used is a BenQ DW1640 and it is considered one of the very best drives for scanning. Almost all other drives won't even scan for jitter (they don't support it) and there will be artificial insane fluxuations in the C1 and C2 errors. If you want, I can scan the two discs again to show the slight differences between scans. It is the overall result we are looking at.
post #45 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by 003 View Post
Unfortunately I can't scan in another drive. The one I used is a BenQ DW1640 and it is considered one of the very best drives for scanning. Almost all other drives won't even scan for jitter (they don't support it) and there will be artificial insane fluxuations in the C1 and C2 errors. If you want, I can scan the two discs again to show the slight differences between scans. It is the overall result we are looking at.
Ah, yeah, you'd mentioned that before... Your points make sense; I don't need any more proof, but it might be interesting to see if there's any variation on a second run-through.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
This thread is locked