[electrathecat]

In the latest issue of The Absolute Sound, there was an eye-opening letter to the editor about CD-Rs vs. original CDs. Basically, the author was saying that, due to the physical nature of how information is encoded on CDs (which are still after all an analog medium recording digital info), a CD-R copy of a given CD not only doesn't sound worse but actually sounds BETTER than the original. I was sure the editor was going to rip the letter writer as a crackpot, but instead he recited an anecdote where the founder of Meridian essentially attested to the same conclusion. Is this result really possible?

P.S. This is my 500th post -- let's make it a good one!

 

[MD1032]

Impossible.

 

[LawnGnome]

Want the best sound from a CD? Rip it.

 

[adanac061]

Quote:

Originally Posted by electrathecat /img/forum/go_quote.gif In the latest issue of The Absolute Sound, there was an eye-opening letter to the editor about CD-Rs vs. original CDs. Basically, the author was saying that, due to the physical nature of how information is encoded on CDs (which are still after all an analog medium recording digital info), a CD-R copy of a given CD not only doesn't sound worse but actually sounds BETTER than the original. I was sure the editor was going to rip the letter writer as a crackpot, but instead he recited an anecdote where the founder of Meridian essentially attested to the same conclusion. Is this result really possible? P.S. This is my 500th post -- let's make it a good one!

If you want this thread to go further than 4 posts, can you provide some links to the article, or a copy of the article. And can we have the "founder of Meridian" anecdote please so we can make a judgment.

Thanks.

 

[Kirosia]

Perhaps if you add a little cream and sugar...

 

[ojnihs]

meh

 

[vcoheda]

i've read the same thing before - don't recall where. maybe they are referring to an original that is damaged in some way (skips sometimes, etc.) compared to a good copy. i don't know.

i've done some informal tests between factory pressed CDs and wav copies and was never able to tell the difference between the two.

i've also read that the original should last longer because the CD is of better quality than most CDRs, or something along those lines.

 

[tim_the_gamer]

I read the same thing on some other forum with specific brands of cdr's and maybe the burner itself mattered but I don't recall exactly. Anyway, I tested this with my own ears on my system out of boredom one evening.

I ripped the original with eac with accurate rip and wrote the cdr on a liteon drive with burnnn. I expected the cdr to sound the same as the original. It did not. It also did not sound better than the original. I heard a general haze especially in the upper mids and highs... almost a smearing/graniness in the cdr as compared to the original. It was noticeable upon several listenings (also on the following day) but I suppose my findings could have been influenced by the non blind testing method. Plus I didn't re-rip the cdr to compare wavs with the original... I wasn't that bored

 

[vagarach]

Humbug, how on earth could this be the case. If you do a bit-for-bit comparison there can't be a difference, otherwise what use would a cd-r have?

And don't say oohhhh but the laser gets an easier read with a cd-r so error correction is not used and so better data is sent to the DAC, because cd-rs are not superior to a pressed cd when it comes to data retention and ease of readability, many people can attest to having a cd-r suddenly stop reading properly.

This thread needs to be put in the snake oil/hocus pocus subforum.

 

[Redo]

Where's Patrick when you need him

 

[chesebert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif i've read the same thing before - don't recall where. maybe they are referring to an original that is damaged in some way (skips sometimes, etc.) compared to a good copy. i don't know. i've done some informal tests between factory pressed CDs and wav copies and was never able to tell the difference between the two. i've also read that the original should last longer because the CD is of better quality than most CDRs, or something along those lines.

My finding is to the contrary. I used the black CDR and found it gave me a mellower top end; the treble felt tad smoother vs the pressed CD.

I understand there are difference in the quality of those black CDRs so YMMV

 

[infinitesymphony]

This question is endlessly debated in the Cables/Tweaks sub-forum. Do they sound better than the originals? That question is unanswerable, because sound quality is subjective and varies from person to person and system to system.

Do they measure better than the originals? Assuming that one uses a decent writer at its ideal speed (which can be found out either by seeing what the people at CD Freaks have to say about your particular drive or by experimenting yourself in Nero CD-DVD Speed) with known high quality media, yes, they can measure better than the original factory-pressed CDs. See post #47 in this recent thread for an example; in particular, note the number of C1 errors and the resultant Quality ratings.

Particularly poorly-manufactured CDs will benefit the most from re-burning, at least in terms of C1 error reduction. Whether or not the measurable difference results in an audible difference is the debatable part.

 

[PiccoloNamek]

If the burnt CD is a bit-for-bit copy of the original and contains no flaws in its optical properties, it will be definition sound the same as the original. The information is digital, after all.

 

[909]

copied CDs sound better than original

a very interesting thread on the steve hoffman site talking about this topic.

 

[pne]

stupid gullible audiophiles...once one person starts spouting nonsense its like a contagious disease.