Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › CD Vs burned CD question
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CD Vs burned CD question

post #1 of 14
10/8/09 at 4:49am
Thread Starter 
I've read that CD players have a much higher sound quality than mp3 files. I have never personally tested this nor have I had a high enough quality headphones to really notice.

If I were to rip a CD to computer and then burn the mp3 files back to the disk how much quality would be loss?

Would burning them to a cd uncompress them? or is it too late and the damage will already have been done?

Note: I understand some quality will be loss regardless simply because the second cd has been converted twice from one format to another..

But, how close will the second cd be to the first cd in quality.

Please elaborate on the different techniques, burning speeds and quality of the different techniques.
Reply
post #2 of 14
10/8/09 at 5:47am
Completely depends on the bitrate of the MP3. Once you've converted to MP3 and discarded some of the audio stream it's gone and it's not coming back. You can rip to a lossless format like FLAC or ALAC and retain all the quality in bigger files. Many people do this for archival purposes or to listen on a computer.
Reply
post #3 of 14
10/8/09 at 1:05pm
Depends on a lot of factors:
* The MP3 encoder (LAME, Fraunhofer, Xing, ...).
* The bitrate of the MP3 files.
* The complexity of the music in use.

But it is a fact that CD audio is 1411kbps, while most most MP3 codecs do not go above 320kbps. So some audio data definitely have to be lost in the process.
If that is audible to your ears is another factor..
Reply
post #4 of 14
10/8/09 at 4:42pm
The damage has already been done - as soon as you go to a lossy format, data has been lost. How much is dependent on the factors already mentioned.
Reply
post #5 of 14
10/8/09 at 5:33pm
There's two ways to transfer MP3 files to a CD: as audio files and as data files.

If you have an older CD player that doesn't recognize MP3 files, you'll need to burn the MP3 files as audio files on to the CD. The files will take up just as much space as uncompressed ("original") audio files.

If you have a CD player that recognizes MP3 files, you can transfer just as data files. Then the player will convert them as they play. Also, you can fit many more files on the CD as data files as opposed to audio files.
Reply
post #6 of 14
10/8/09 at 8:02pm
once it become MP3, data loss is loss not matter what you do include convert it back to CD. I always keep an image file of the CD in my external HDD and rip into whatever codec or burn CD from it to avoid scratching my precious CD that may also have artist signature on it.

after joining head-fi, I rip everything into 320kbps or FLAC. but for simple music the differences between 192 vs 320 isn't noticeable though.
Reply
post #7 of 14
10/10/09 at 1:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hsiu View Post
after joining head-fi, I rip everything into 320kbps or FLAC. but for simple music the differences between 192 vs 320 isn't noticeable though.
I disagree - lossless is always best - FLAC or WAV files being desireable, but I try not to go lower than 320 on lossy files
Reply
post #8 of 14
10/10/09 at 1:49pm
just copy original redbook to black backed cd-r 1:1 for better perceived sound
Reply
post #9 of 14
10/10/09 at 1:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaddy View Post
just copy original redbook to black backed cd-r 1:1 for better perceived sound
Shouldn't you also use one of those special green markers to colour the edges?
Reply
post #10 of 14
10/10/09 at 2:05pm
you can or i use a stamat cdi blue to save the worlds ink reserves
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadcykler View Post
Shouldn't you also use one of those special green markers to colour the edges?
Reply
post #11 of 14
10/11/09 at 1:50pm
Thread Starter 
So in terms of lossless formats which ones do yall generally find best? i've noticed *some* difference between mp3 128 kbs and the lossless WMA (max bitrate). The instruments sounded a bit clearer. not *as* much improvement on the vocals but, when you notice the vocals more 90% of the time anyway a slight improvement would be a bit harder to notice.

ALso worth noting i was listening on a cheapo set of headphones so that may have been another choke.
Reply
post #12 of 14
10/11/09 at 5:56pm
I don't think there's a perceived audio difference with lossless formats. Of course, there are factors involved such as the decoder on the PC or DAP being used.

Given that most DAP's usually only support one lossless format, I would go with whatever supported format it uses. If you are using it on a PC only, then I would probably go with FLAC since it's the closest thing to a standard as you'll find, right now.
Reply
post #13 of 14
10/12/09 at 1:58am
Thread Starter 
Hm. I may go with FLAC for now then. I was contemplating wma lossless.

FLAC probably stands a better chance at being playable on different players it sounds like.
Reply
post #14 of 14
10/12/09 at 6:12am
flac for more all round supportedness, gets a real pain real quick to have to be transcoding all the time.

i used to only use wav for purism, but once i got over myself it was easier with flac and tags.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › CD Vs burned CD question