Originally Posted by LawnGnome
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.
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."