[gonglee]

Many think that LP still sounds better than digital.
You should try this tweak to improve the sound of CDs.
The CDs you buy are stamped in less than a second - if you burn it in your computer, it is done slowely, and improves the sound.

The window media player can upgrade the epec to 192 kbps - left mouse click on the burn tab on top, and choose more options. Pick slow speed, and on the bottom, convert to 192 kbps.

Also the CDR you use makes a difference - Taiyo yuden are about 20 cents each and sound good. Mitsui gold costs $1 and sounds a little better ( and lasts longer they say 300 years ). You can google search for the places that sell them. Fuji CDR that is made in Japan also is Taiyo Yuden - sometimes you can find these at Bestbuys.

Modern CDR players won't let you burn at slow 1x speed. Plextor burners do that, and sound the best. You can get one for less than $140.

If you do all that, the sound will be noticeably better. Upper fr. are smoother, and less digitally - closer to analogue, and dynamic is improved.

It just sounds right and satisfying. This stopped my upgrade bug for a long time - hopefully it will work for you too.

 

[Davesrose]

Or you could just rip to mp3 128kbps

Because it sounds like you like compressed music. Mp3 will do the same thing and lower the dynamics of a CD. I don't see how recording a CD-R at 1X will change the original the original audio CD (if you're not downgrading it to 192 kbps). Digital is Digital.....a CD stores the exact same information if it's burned slowly or quickly. What you're doing is first converting the waveform to 192kbps first.....compressing it. If you like it so much, I guess you can fit several albums on your CD-R

 

[spacemanspliff]

gently now. he was just trying to help. I don't know enough about this to speakify about it but I know that music does sound better ripped lossless to the HD than playing off of my craptastic PC cd drive.

 

[Davesrose]

it sounds like you've got a crapy cd drive then. Actually, many cd drives do their own decoding of audio CDs.....so it's not your soundcard that's playing the CD, but rather just amplifying the signal. So that would probably account for the difference in SQ there.

 

[gonglee]

I am a musician and I fancy myself to have a pretty good ears - and I definitely hear a difference.

The Europian philosophy of source as the most important factor makes sense now to me. If you don't want to try this tweak, don't ruin it for others by knocking it - I really believe this will do a some good in our search for that sonic heaven.

There are many audiophiles already doing this in other hifi forums. Infact, some hifi shops use this method in demoing their gears - even in professional audio shows.

The statement digital is digital is simpy wrong - let your ears be the judge, and you will thank me then.

Also when you are ripping CDs to your computer, the best program is EAC (Exact Audio Copy) - download for free ( google search for it ). Use wav format and not mp3 for best results.

 

[gonglee]

meant 96000 khz sampling rate, and 24 bits, instead of 192 kbps.

If you try it, you will definitely hear a difference, and you will thank me then.

It gives soul to digital, if you thought it was lacking it.

If you have a program like protools, you can even go higher with the upconversion, but the program is pretty expensive - $600 with the hardware.

I am listening to a CD I burned now - when I compare it with the red CD I bought, it's no brainer - after you try it, you will burn your entire CD collection like me.

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonglee /img/forum/go_quote.gif meant 96000 khz sampling rate, and 24 bits, instead of 192 kbps. If you try it, you will definitely hear a difference, and you will thank me then. It gives soul to digital, if you thought it was lacking it. If you have a program like protools, you can even go higher with the upconversion, but the program is pretty expensive - $600 with the hardware. I am listening to a CD I burned now - when I compare it with the red CD I bought, it's no brainer - after you try it, you will burn your entire CD collection like me.

Why burn it?

rip your collection to wav and put it on a large, say 500gb disk, no compression, no wear and you can listen to the music whenever you want.

 

[HiWire]

I think I'm going to try one of the liquid/cleaner treatments - Optrix to get a cheapo improvement. A few of my CDs are lightly scratched anyway, so it shouldn't be a big risk.

Copying at 1X is a good idea, in my opinion, if you want the best reproduction. Mind you, I almost never copy anything, but my best friend (IT guy) says it reduces the number of errors significantly. Digital is not just digital.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HiWire /img/forum/go_quote.gif Copying at 1X is a good idea, in my opinion, if you want the best reproduction. Mind you, I almost never copy anything, but my best friend (IT guy) says it reduces the number of errors significantly. Digital is not just digital.

Maybe if your source is another CD-R or mp3.....then maybe you can hear a difference with 1x. I can't believe burning at 24x would introduce that many errors from directly copying from an original CD. I really don't see how copying an original CD would change things....if it's a direct copy. Your point would be that it would diminish it because it would introduce data errors. Pressed CDs shouldn't have errors since they're stamped with a master mold.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonglee /img/forum/go_quote.gif meant 96000 khz sampling rate, and 24 bits, instead of 192 kbps. If you try it, you will definitely hear a difference, and you will thank me then. It gives soul to digital, if you thought it was lacking it. If you have a program like protools, you can even go higher with the upconversion, but the program is pretty expensive - $600 with the hardware. I am listening to a CD I burned now - when I compare it with the red CD I bought, it's no brainer - after you try it, you will burn your entire CD collection like me. Today 10:18 AM

How can you fit an entire album at 24 bits on one CD-R? So you're changing the audio by having Windows Media Player upconvert 16 bit to 24 bit.....OK, you got me. Maybe I'll try it at some point. Though my DAC already upconverts to 24bit, so the only difference I might hear is the difference in upconversions. And I suspect my expensive DAC will still sound better then what Windows Media Player can do. But maybe I'll give it a try.

BTW, how do you upconvert a wave file to 24bit audio in Windows Media?? I'm in Windows Media player right now, and I don't see that as being any option under burn....you can convert to 192kbps mp3 or wm though.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonglee /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am a musician and I fancy myself to have a pretty good ears - and I definitely hear a difference.

I assume that you verified this with level matched blind testing.

There are hundreds of cases where differences are definitely heard "sighted" but cannot be validated at all when heard blind. I have compared CDs vs CD-R copies I have never found any differences at all under any circumstances. the copies are always bit-perfect and blind testing shows no differences whatsoever. Golden ears are notoriously bad at this...

You cannot get more info from the CD than the 16 bits it has to start with and when you burn it back to CD it becomes 16 bits again so it is a zero journey.

 

[StevieDvd]

This thread needs to be merged with the other in computer as source I think. Having it in two places won't change the facts.

Digital is digital. You are not comparing like for like. Either your original CD is scratched, your CD drive is unable to read everything clearly with a standard read or less likely the pressing was poor.

Read what EAC actually does and why on the author's homepage and you'll see how his software converts what otherwise would read as an error back to vaild data.

In the software world I've seen a CD fail to install solely due to a fingerprint on the CD surface which one PC CD will read and another ignore. Clean the CD and it works on both. And as an old timer I've been using CDs since they came out as single speed scsi only and the media was £10 to £15 for each disk.

As I said on the other thread you are correct for some poor CDs whether burned or original.

 

[Don Quichotte]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have compared CDs vs CD-R copies I have never found any differences at all under any circumstances. the copies are always bit-perfect and blind testing shows no differences whatsoever.

I do hear a very noticeable difference, but in the CD's favor. And differences between various copies done on different burners and on different media (recorded from the same HD image). My CD player and others I've heard showing these differences are definitely not top class, but a friend of mine who owns a Meridian G08 says he also hears a difference, albeit not a dramatic one. I don't know what accounts for these differences, I really don't know, I thought it's the jitter but some more technically competent members here said it couldn't be; however, I have no doubts that what I'm hearing is real.
By the way, the different sounding CDs and CD-Rs, when (re-)ripped on HD, yield identical tracks, which is easily verifiable through several methods. So all the bits are there...

 

[bigshot]

If the tracks on the CD-R are exactly the same as the tracks on the original CD, and you are hearing a difference between the two, you are hearing something other than what's on the CD. Suggested sources for these differences would be your ears or your brain.

See ya
Steve

 

[gonglee]

Perhaps the slow burning makes it easier for the laser to bounce back the info. There are many CD tweaks out there if you search for it. Some swear by chemical treatments - others buy a cutter that makes it nearer to a perfect circle, to avoid wobbling.

I have a pretty upscale CD player, and the better the player, the more obvious is the improvement - infact, I don't enjoy listening to a red CD any more. There also is a $199 software that claims it makes the CDs better than SACD. The name escapes me - I will post it once I remember (My next toy

)

Any way, since it costs so little to experiment, I hope this brings as much listening pleasure to all as it has for me.

 

[musicexpression]

Quote:

Originally Posted by StevieDvd /img/forum/go_quote.gif This thread needs to be merged with the other in computer as source I think. Having it in two places won't change the facts. Digital is digital. You are not comparing like for like. Either your original CD is scratched, your CD drive is unable to read everything clearly with a standard read or less likely the pressing was poor. Read what EAC actually does and why on the author's homepage and you'll see how his software converts what otherwise would read as an error back to vaild data. In the software world I've seen a CD fail to install solely due to a fingerprint on the CD surface which one PC CD will read and another ignore. Clean the CD and it works on both. And as an old timer I've been using CDs since they came out as single speed scsi only and the media was £10 to £15 for each disk. As I said on the other thread you are correct for some poor CDs whether burned or original.

i would think that for redbook CDA format, the error detection/correction/recovery capabilities of the playback machine has an sonic impact on CDR playback. AFAIK, audio CDs are EFM-encoded as a form of data-interleaving to "spread" the probability of read errors across a few frames of encoded information, such that a single scratch on the CD surface does not cause any audible effects.

so it's up to the error-recovery mechanism that tries to guestimate and makeup the errored part. how well it does may have an impact on the perceived quality.