[HappymaN]

Just wondering.

 

[ai0tron]

I think it was Tim D who stated that a burned cd could be higher res considering the better error correction found in computer cd roms.

Basically since cd's are pressed, they are nto always centered perfectly, so when you burn a disc the infromation is layed down just as it would be read by the drive.

 

[Tim D]

There was a big thread about this...I think basically it can be better, worse, or the same depending on the CD player, CD burner, CD media, etc. For example you could use EAC to rip from a somewhat scratchy disc, and burn a new copy that will play better on a CD player that doesn't handle scratched discs well, but handles CDR media fine. Likewise you can do a crappy burn of a fine sounding original, etc.

Short and lazy answer would be it depends.

 

[pedxing]

Really depends on the burner, copying (digital extraction), play back, and medium.

 

[Keiso]

Using my Sanyo CDR drive (Sanyo invented Burn-proof technology), I did several tests at various reading speed of the accuracy. I went up to 8X, I don't think it's a good idea to higher, even though your player can handle it (well, psychologically I feel safer not to go up higher).

Anyway, the result was perfect, not a single error, and this was without any jitter correction stuff.

Tried my Pioneer DVD drive.... the result was not so satisfactory (still very good, but not perfect).

So it all depends on your hardware, CDRs and your settings, etc.

 

[Audio-Me]

If you do it right, there is no difference except maybe slight unnoticable changes in timing. It's all bit by bit, if a ripper/burner/player can't do that right, well what the hell is it doing out in the market? A good transport concists of error free concistant bit stream reading, then jitter corrections for timing accuracy, then the digital to analog conversion, and finally the output. Everything leading upto the conversion shouldn't be a problem, yet many of the equipment we buy have inconcistancies and what not...

 

[kelly]

"Bits is bits." I hate people who say that. I need to add that to the pet peevs thread.

Ok, here's my take. A friend and I made a bet a couple of years ago. He said I couldn't tell the difference and I said I could. Using my S7000 as a source and my NHT VT-2 speakers throught the DA80ES receiver, there was a slight difference. The pressed CD seemed to have better blackness and focus.

So the question was then... ok, if I can tell on my fairly low end mid-fi system that there was a difference, it was probably legitimate and would be even more discernable on better equipment--so why, what caused it. I read about jitter on web sites and wondered if that could play a part. I wasn't sure since I thought the job of clocking was primarily a hardware function and didn't have much to do with the data on the disc (especially if the music was pir...er I mean, copied digitally so it never hit an analog stage to introduce more jitter in its conversion back to digital.) If that's incorrect, someone let me know. So what else then? The quality of the disc itself came to mind. Perhaps some discs that we use to burn are not as carefully balanced and thus don't spin as evenly and maybe that causes jitter to be introduced by the player? A thought. The material used may have a bearing there too.

One point i can make is this. I've seen identical releases on discs that come from different factories sold in different countries. It's the exact same mastering, same mix, same publisher even usually. Yet, there are sonic differences between pressings. Typically the Japanese pressings sounded better even when they didn't include extra tracks (meaning they probably didn't have a chance to go back and fix anything). Typically, the European (Germany, UK, Holland) releases sounded better than the American releases.

I know a lot of you will claim this is placebo and just psychological but I really think something legitimate is going on here.

 

[Audio-Me]

Then what's the advantage of digital if bits arn't exactly bits?

Well a couple of years ago, did you make good copies using good software and methods or sloppy ones? Because I can tell the difference of a regular joe automated copy (weak DAE software/burning software) from the original with ****ty portables and stock headphones.

When you mass produce anything, quality control becomes a problem, this isn't unheard of even in digital world. Unrelated but why do you think some kids get lucky when buying video cards that perform slightly better than the same exact one (box right next to the one you got it from on the counter)?

My point is, it's unfair to the regular consumers that the companies only make nearly errorless transports in the $5k+ range. Is it really that hard to achieve the same results in a less expensive transport? I have suspicion that it's all marketing, and they slack off on the lower end stuff. It definately doesn't cost 5 grand to make plastic thing spin, probably not even $100 (depending on the cost of parts). The real money should be spent on time calculations, digital to analog conversion, and analog output circuitry (power source playing a big role here as usual). Isolation isn't exactly rocket science either...

 

[kai_yip]

My experience is:

Using Kodak gold (74 min)

For better quality cd(eg. LSD of Enigma), the CDR give less detail and transparent sound

But for poor quality cd(eg. non-digitally remestered slippery when wet of Bon Jovi), CDR give better sound in bass and air feel

 

[Audio-Me]

Different media does seem to matter as well. Like cables do, just not that dramatic or obvious.

I only use Kodak gold cdrs for data backup, never tried it for audio.

 

[aeberbach]

Bits are bits. There is no disputing the fact that if you take every bit off a CD and burn it onto a CD-R the sound is identical.

Anyone who disputes this is either trying to sell you something, or has been sold something and doesn't want to be the only one taken in.

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by aeberbach Bits are bits. There is no disputing the fact that if you take every bit off a CD and burn it onto a CD-R the sound is identical. Anyone who disputes this is either trying to sell you something, or has been sold something and doesn't want to be the only one taken in.

Thus, according to aeberbach, anyone who has ever bought:

a better digital cable
a DIP (Monarchy, Theta) reclocker
a better brand of CDRs
better digital connectors/jacks (including XLR jacks)
decided to use coax over optical or optical over coax for any reason other than cost

is a complete moron, or a salesman.

Hmmm.

 

[dlow]

This is kind of long and slightly off topic, but deals with this whole digital quality issue that keeps coming up in audio circles.

If digital transport media and mediums (S/PDIF, AES, DAT, CDs, etc...) are so unreliable (in a computer sense) that you can hear audible differences, how could personal computers and the Internet manage to transfer literally trillions of bytes per second and not grind to a halt? I mean, compared to computer software, financial data, compressed data and encrypted data, audio information is very forgiving.

For example, if CD playback could have enough errors to make an audible difference, does that mean every time I install Microsoft Office, my software will have random defects? Worse yet, since the software is compressed, even a single bit error would clobber large chunks of data because compression relies on past data to contruct current and future data!

After several sleepless nights, I've managed to put my mind at ease. It all comes down to feedback (flow control and error detection / correction). Both of which have been somewhat lacking in consumer audio electronics.

Flow control is the ability to vary the speed with which you receive data. In typical computer fashion, the speeds are typically full tilt and full stop. Using flow control, you can get data faster than you need. But when you can't take any more, you can ask the sender to stop while you digest what you have.

Error correction / detection is pretty much self explanatory. The key points are being able to find an error and deal with it. Either by correcting it yourself or by ask for it again.

Toslink is a good example of something that lacks both. The sender is forced to send data at exactly the same rate as it is needed. If there are any significant errors or timing issues, there is nothing the receiver can do. Even with advanced buffering systems, if the data arrives late more than it does early, the buffer will eventually deplete with no chance of ever filling up. If the data arrives more earlier than late, the buffer will eventually overflow and lose data. However, on average, the buffer can help smooth out small timing flaws. But with errors, there is no recourse except to either play the damaged data or drop it.

With CD-ROMs things are *potentially* much better. They have flow control, error detection and error correction. They typically spin faster than 1x, so you can quickly fill your buffers and then stop reading. In other words, you can reclock the data to eliminate timing problems. This also introduces lots of idle time for the CD drive which can be spent rereading data to detect and recover from bad data (a la EAC).

I use the word potentially because for the sake of cost and political reasons, most consumer grade CD players and other audio equipment lack some or all of the features required for "perfect" CD playback. If any of you want to make a killing on the audiophile CD player market, simply package a CD-ROM drive, EAC and a good DAC into a rackmount chassis and you'd be set.

Audio&Me: If by transport, you mean a S/PDIF like wired transport, I can give you an audiophile quality, errorless, jitterless transport for under $20. It's called Ethernet, you can pick up a 10 Mbit card for dirt cheap and a 100 Mbit one for about the same price now. They have flow control, error detection and enough bandwidth for all of your stereo audio needs. Why, you might ask we don't use Ethernet instead of S/PDIF? Because the RIAA would have fits since anybody with a computer could rip CDs right off their CD players. Oh, wait a minute, there's already consumer level rip and burn machines on the market already

And why does consumer grade "errorless" transports cost upwards of $5000? Because it's extremely expensive to compansate for the flaws in S/PDIF instead of just doing it right the first time.

If by transport, you meant CDs, look no futher than your home PC.

 

[Keiso]

Great post. I've just saved it for reference later

I especially enjoyed the last bit about the ethernet controller, even though I don't know if that's the whole story....

 

[Audio-Me]

Ethernet makes perfect sense. Same with firewire. That's one of the key reasons why I wrote up a PC sound guide, to let people know that you can use your computer as a high end transport, but it's the D/A conversion and analog output where fidelity is lost.