[immtbiker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chops /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's like saying a single dollar bill is worth more straight from the bank than it is from a store as change.

Even though it's a good analogy, there are tests that have proven that a re-burned CD can sound better than the original.
On a Record company's pressing the burn takes place very close to the label. As a matter of fact, in some cases the pit "stamping" and label are pressed in one fell swoop. This is why, when you scratch the label side of a CD, it stands a greater chance of being unrecoverable. When we burn a CD at home, it is in a different place on the CD-R (depth wise) which is why it is easier to "Disc Doctor" a store bought CD with greater success than a home-ade one. So there are reasons why one CD can sound different than the original, and why speed makes a difference.

Burn the same CD at 2X speed and and another one at 48x speed and compare all three (including the original).

I used to have a great diagram of what the diference was between a store bought CD and one that was reburned and I have just spent the last hour of my life trying to retrieve it. I'll find it.

People have the same arguement about powercord and IC differences and one member said it makes no difference...it's like saying that water can be "more wet" when it comes to electrons.
Well I like my water more wet, and I do hear a huge difference in cables.
To each his/her own. If you can't hear a difference between slower burned CD's and cable swapping, then that's one less thing that you have to worry about in life. I can hear the difference and in my constant quest on my road to Audio Nirvanna, I'm enjoying the ride.

 

[immtbiker]

One editor's reason why slower speeds make a difference:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/nov0...s/qa1104-3.htm

 

[Chops]

Quote:

Originally Posted by immtbiker /img/forum/go_quote.gif Even though it's a good analogy, there are tests that have proven that a re-burned CD can sound better than the original. On a Record company's pressing the burn takes place very close to the label. As a matter of fact, in some cases the pit "stamping" and label are pressed in one fell swoop. This is why, when you scratch the label side of a CD, it stands a greater chance of being unrecoverable. When we burn a CD at home, it is in a different place on the CD-R (depth wise) which is why it is easier to "Disc Doctor" a store bought CD with greater success than a home-ade one. So there are reasons why one CD can sound different than the original, and why speed makes a difference. Burn the same CD at 2X speed and and another one at 48x speed and compare all three (including the original). I used to have a great diagram of what the diference was between a store bought CD and one that was reburned and I have just spent the last hour of my life trying to retrieve it. I'll find it. People have the same arguement about powercord and IC differences and one member said it makes no difference...it's like saying that water can be "more wet" when it comes to electrons. Well I like my water more wet, and I do hear a huge difference in cables. To each his/her own. If you can't hear a difference between slower burned CD's and cable swapping, then that's one less thing that you have to worry about in life. I can hear the difference and in my constant quest on my road to Audio Nirvanna, I'm enjoying the ride.

I'll agree that the burning process of recordable CDs are better, including at slower rates, and the burnable CDs themselves are of better quality than mass-produced "pressed" CDs.

However, the thing that's getting me wondering is HOW can a reburned CD sound better than the source? There has to be something being added to the reburn via the software. You can't get blood out of a turnip.

I think I'll try the suggestion you made above about burning two CDs at both extremes (speed wise that is). In fact, if I can, I'll jack up the settings even more to make the files extra huge and burn them to a DVD to see if that makes a difference.

 

[Chops]

BTW, I also believe in different cables having different sounds, both power and signal cables.

 

[sonicm]

Having a difference in cds seems possible, but hearing that difference doesn't seem probable, seeing as there'd have to be a difference bigger than a bit or two, but if it really was that big, data cds wouldn't work out, everything would turn out corrupt or more obviously, text files would have small random mistakes in them.
That my take on the matter anyways...

 

[JaZZ]

The pits on a burned CD are sharper than those on a pressed CD. Considering that most CD players' DACs convert the data in realtime, without any buffering or reclocking, this may be favorable for the sound quality: the sharper the pits, the lower the jitter. So burned CDs can indeed sound better than the originals. (I haven't tested it personally, though.)
.

 

[Chops]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif The pits on a burned CD are sharper than those on a pressed CD. Considering that most CD players' DACs convert the data in realtime, without any buffering or reclocking, this may be favorable for the sound quality: the sharper the pits, the lower the jitter. So burned CDs can indeed sound better than the originals. (I haven't tested it personally, though.) .

"The pits on a burned CD are sharper than those on a pressed CD."

This may be true, but if you're ripping a CD with "rounded pits" already on it, then even the slow burned copy should also have those rounded pits because that's what it read from to begin with.

Again, unless the software is changing something between the master and the copy, I just can't see how a copy can sound any better than the original.

In fact, I just burned a CD via the instructions in the OP's first post in WMP 11, and honestly can NOT hear any difference between the original and copy. If I had to make a choice, I'd have to say the original still sounds slightly better.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chops /img/forum/go_quote.gif "The pits on a burned CD are sharper than those on a pressed CD." This may be true, but if you're ripping a CD with "rounded pits" already on it, then even the slow burned copy should also have those rounded pits because that's what it read from to begin with.

No: The data are stored as digital data -- just 0s and 1s --, not analog «pitforms».
.

 

[Chops]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif No: The data are stored as digital data -- just 0s and 1s --, not analog «pitforms». .

Yes, I know. 0's and 1's are nothing more than 0's and 1's.

BTW, I just downloaded and installed EAC nearly 2 hours ago and ripped the same master CD as slow as possible on my system at 192kbps, turned around and burned it as slow as possible (about 7.7x read/write speed).

Guess what? Still NO difference between the master and copy! Imagine that. At least I know I can make a backup copy with virtually no loss in quality, but it certainly isn't any better than the original, just like I've been saying all along.

And this is the CD I've been using...

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chops /img/forum/go_quote.gif BTW, I just downloaded and installed EAC nearly 2 hours ago and ripped the same master CD as slow as possible on my system at 192kbps...

You converted it to MP3?

Why that? It would be a bad precondition for a fair comparison -- and actually should lead to a worse sounding copy. I just wonder if you were burning it as MP3 disk or CD tracks.

Quote:

Still NO difference between the master and copy! Imagine that. At least I know I can make a backup copy with virtually no loss in quality, but it certainly isn't any better than the original, just like I've been saying all along.

There's at least the theoretical possibility that the copy sounds better -- it may depend on the player. After all the people who know in advance that it can't make a difference should rethink their perspective, although personally I doubt that the sonic difference will be earthshaking. I have burned many CDs and -- without A/B tests -- couldn't detect an obvious difference.
.

 

[Davesrose]

are we doomed to repeat history!!!! We're going full circle. If someone mentions "my bad, not 192 kbps, 24 bit", somebody really should post a sticky on what a mp3 vs redbook 16 bit audio vs HD 24 bit audio is!!!!

 

[Chops]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif You converted it to MP3? Why that? It would be a bad precondition for a fair comparison -- and actually should lead to a worse sounding copy. I just wonder if you were burning it as MP3 disk or CD tracks. There's at least the theoretical possibility that the copy sounds better -- it may depend on the player. After all the people who know it advance that it can't make a difference should rethink their perspective, although personally I doubt that the sonic difference will be earthshaking. I have burned many CDs and -- without A/B tests -- couldn't detect an obvious difference. .

Woops! No, I didn't burn an MP3 disc. It's late, I'm tired and didn't mean the whole 192kbps thing.

I ripped the CD track for track uncompressed. I then burned it as uncompressed WAV.

I'm going to bed now.

 

[ichiro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you happen to know a manufacturer that mentions that on their site? I did about fifteen minutes of googling, and couldn't come up with any. I've always been told that burners are optimized to work at a particular speed, usually their fastest rated one. Burning at extremely low speeds can introduce more error, not less. Rounded edges on pits would suggest that the disk was rotating faster than the laser is turning on and off... that's unlikely, isn't it? See ya Steve

A few years back I owned a yamaha cd-burner with "audio master" mode. I never did a comparison between hi-speed burning and audio master but there still is some info about it on yamaha's site.
http://www.yamahamultimedia.com/yec/tech/am_01.asp

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif Pressed CDs shouldn't have errors since they're stamped with a master mold.

Actually, all pressed CDs have many thousands of C1 errors. This is because the aluminum layer on such pressed CDs themselves is quite imperfect - and it's practically impossible to manufacture an absolutely perfect aluminum layer of the correct thickness for CD player compatibility.

 

[Konig]

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.

Question:
Your report findings are the exact same thing as one lessloss customer. He went to buy a $600 dedicated 1x marantz recorder and record everything on mitsui disk. He used a computer (i dont know what drive he uses on his comp) but he say it doesnt sound as good.

However, I was thinking if it possible to get the same improvement by altering power cable. Im still do not like CDs for their inconvenience.