[Jahn]

Nice custom title Neil - i made the mistake of putting it in google tho - brr....


http://www.zoolander.com/flash_site/about_looks.html

Don't forget "Ferrari!"

 

[Chastity]

Another avenue to look is that making a copy gives you an opportunity to address any nasty mastering mistakes, or to do some cleanup on old analog recordings. Many CDs today are mastered poorly in regards to attenuation, and clip. These can be addressed by adjusting the gain. A case in point is "Stairway to Heaven" on Led Zep IV. Even on the remasters there is some nasty clipping going on from the masters, especially during the guitar solo. Some quality time in CoolEdit Pro addressed these issues and now my copy sounds a heck of alot better.

 

[Tim D]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan Data CDs have more bits allocated to error protection than audio CDs. Notice you can store more MegaBytes on an audio CD. As for jitter, it really only affects CD playback not a computer reading the disc (even if it that disc was redbook).

Yep basically you can look it up here and it'll answer many other CDR questions. http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq02.html#S2-17

But IMO redbook is a bit long in the tooth. You could rip a CD, FLAC it, then fill the rest of the CD with PAR files and that same content would be on orders of magnitude more robust.

In anycase the specs of Audio CD's are not considered to be so important to require lossless error correction.

I also don't care enough about redbook to reburn my entire collection for improvement. But give me a HTPC or MiniMAC, and I'd love to burn FLAC'd ALAC'd albums + par files on DVD's.

 

[Hase]

In dealing with a player's ability to better read a CDR, is the spacing of the pits really an issue? Aren't they all just loaded into a buffer anyway? I am probably missing something, but as long as the laser is actully reading the bits correctly and the buffer never runs flat, isn't the processor receiving the exact same data from a CDR that it would a stamped disk?

 

[Nak Man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWill btw, I think the whole jitter and error correction thing is vastly overblown. Why? Simple - most purchased CD-ROMs work perfectly. .... So if there's no problem with *data* CDs burned on cheap media and read in cheap drives, does it make sense that *audio* CDs will be full of errors and prone to bad reads? Not particularly, at least not in my head.

The major difference is that digital audio need to be converted into analog time domain, and this is where those jitter take place. Basically same exact data that is read at wrong time will produce 'jagged' curve different to original analog one.

Without the aid of golden ears these subtle changes will probably go undetected for a long time .... one of the reason for me not to argue with those blessed with such ears =) Only limited number of people will be able to notice such minute, but real, differences. Since I can't hear those diff in the first place then I am not bothered as much.

Interestingly, many 'experts' on electrical transmission have stated that jitter problems can be eliminated with the use of cheap, simple and proven method (don't ask me what =). Unfortunately that was not a requirement in audio cd guidelines so here we're left with this 'perfect sound forever'.

 

[Audio Redneck]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hase In dealing with a player's ability to better read a CDR, is the spacing of the pits really an issue? Aren't they all just loaded into a buffer anyway? I am probably missing something, but as long as the laser is actully reading the bits correctly and the buffer never runs flat, isn't the processor receiving the exact same data from a CDR that it would a stamped disk?

Yes, IF...

IF the laser is actually reading the bits correctly on the first pass the buffer should never "run flat" and the data stream should be steady or jitter free.

It's when the laser misreads a bit and has to re-read, and possibly estimate, the data in a given timespan that the data stream to the buffer fluctuates and the potential for jitter and related anomolies is greatest.

Keep in mind that a CD-ROM drive is designed to reread the disc until it gets a correct read based on parity checking. A CD player is designed to errorcorrect (estimate) all but the worst misreads in a given amount of time.

I realized the strongest evidence that the topic is possible (again, I am not saying it is probable) is that a copy of a damaged/scuffed CD can play perfectly while the damaged/scuffed original is unplayable (personal experience). Why? The CD player gives up reading the disc after X-passes and "correct" or estimate the data read error, while the computer CD drive attempts to re-read until it gets a correct parity or determines it will never achieve parity.

DVD movies demonstrate this as well since many of the flaws can be SEEN. The player has a time contraint it has to meet, so if it can't read the data, it estimates the picture and goes on. If it didn't, when you watch a movie and it had a misread the picture would freeze instead of just putting up some odd blocks in the picture (and yes I am aware in extreme error conditions, the picture will freeze, but most errors are handled by correction.)

 

[kfh227]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl After reading all kinds of info on the subject, it appears that many believe it's possible to create a copy of a pressed CD that actually sounds better than the original. I'm open to this idea, but want to find out what you think and why. So here's a poll asking the fundamental question: "Is it possible to make a copy of an original pressed CD that actually sounds better than the source material it is drawn from?" Your comments on why this is impossible are appreciated as are comments on why/how this is possible are equally appreciated... Please specify under what conditions and with what software and blank media it is possible and/or impossible...

23% of peole think a copied CD sounds better than the original. WOW! Ummm, I'd love to explain why this is flawed, but if it's not obvious, therer's probably no way to convince hose people otherwise. in short, copying an audio CD can ONLY result in the LOSS of data bits. nothing more can be gained by copying a disc? I don't understand how people could think otherwise.

 

[eyeteeth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kfh227 I don't understand how people could think otherwise.

Maybe this can help you become unmystified.

Meanwhile needing to order some more blanks I was comparing Mitsui-Gold and Taiyo Yuden and damned if I could choose a preference! They're not exactly the same but which I liked more was a toss up. It seemed a little more contrast and flatter response with the MG and a more prominent midrange with smoother highs on the TY.

General digital naysay public: Don't bother arguing with me...I'm not interested.

 

[NeilPeart]

It's all about C1 and C2 error rates - Mitsui, Mitsubishi and Verbatim all have higher error rates than TY. All of the above-mentioned media would sound identical because their error-rates are so low and the error-correction would suffice, but the extra-anal data integrity of the TY makes them my choice. Oh yeah - the TY media has a "smoother top-end and tighter bass response as well"