Quality of copied CD's?
May 22, 2004 at 7:28 PM Post #17 of 32

jefemeister

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Posts
2,807
Likes
11
when optical discs were developed for audio use, it seems they tried to make them as vinyl-like as possible. On a CD, the audio data is basically one long serial stream. The data is read and played in real time in one shot. Yes, it has error correction but it isn't all that great. In a CD-ROM, the data is in sectors and records, has checksums, etc. Also a CD-ROM can be re-read if there was an error until it gets it right. It isn't a real-time system like an audio disc. If you get an error on an audio disc all you can do is patch it up best you can and hope to keep up with the data still coming off the disc.
 
May 22, 2004 at 7:34 PM Post #18 of 32

markl

Hangin' with the monkeys.
Member of the Trade: Lawton Audio
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Posts
9,130
Likes
44
Quote:

Is there better quality CD-Rs that will effect the quality?


Taiyo Yuden CD-Rs are generally considered by most to be superior (and the differences are measureable, too, so it's not a matter of voodoo). They also are designed to "last 100 years" with special protective layers and such, but we have to take that with a grain of salt as no one really knows how long these things will actually end up lasting, some speculate only a matter of years, not decades.
 
May 22, 2004 at 7:57 PM Post #19 of 32

jefemeister

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Posts
2,807
Likes
11
I've been hearing a lot about these Taiyo Yuden discs. I've seen them for sale on-line 100 for $40. Anyone know the best place to get them as far reliability of the seller? Do any stores cary them?

edit: i think ebay just answered my question.
 
May 22, 2004 at 8:45 PM Post #20 of 32

Distroyed

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Posts
1,089
Likes
12
Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich
I know, it doesn't make sense. Bit == 1 || 0. Nothing in between. However, offsets DO make sense to me. My burner (I use for ripping, since it's in better shape than my main drive) has a +685 read offset. Since there's 44,100 samples to a second in Redbook, that's about 1/64 of a second. Not much, granted, but it's not a 1:1 copy anymore, since the lost data is filled up with null to make up for it.

(-:Stephonovich:)




I never found 1/64 of a second worth the process it takes to determine a drive's offset.

But what's the best program to copy audio data onto a cd, or are all cd burning programs equal?
 
May 23, 2004 at 4:12 AM Post #21 of 32

mikeliao

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 19, 2003
Posts
447
Likes
13
Location
San Francisco
So, in theory if I make perfect .wav copies of my music, I could use a cheap computer with an awesome soundcard as a near perfect transport. Right or am I missing a step here?
 
May 23, 2004 at 11:04 AM Post #22 of 32

Distroyed

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Posts
1,089
Likes
12
Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeliao
So, in theory if I make perfect .wav copies of my music, I could use a cheap computer with an awesome soundcard as a near perfect transport. Right or am I missing a step here?



Im trying to avoid the recent evolution of the etymology of the word, but how are you using the word "transport" here?
 
May 23, 2004 at 11:40 AM Post #23 of 32

mikeliao

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 19, 2003
Posts
447
Likes
13
Location
San Francisco
Sorry, by transport I mean the mechnical and electronic hardware necessary to get the little 0's and 1's off the CD, line them up orderly, count heads to make sure everyone's there and has their lunch, then send them off to the DAC.
 
May 23, 2004 at 6:45 PM Post #24 of 32

Stephonovich

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Posts
3,260
Likes
11
Quote:

Originally Posted by kaitsuburi
I wouldn't imagine pirates in China are using Taiyo Yuden media burned at 4X
biggrin.gif


I don't know about you, but I am always paranoid about CD copying....



No, not likely. Although I've always thought it'd be hilarious to start up an Audiophile Pirate Group. Everything ripped carefully with offsets corrected in EAC, burned to Taiyo Yuden at no more than 8x (I personally burn at 8x, as my drive has a max speed of 12x. One or two steps down from maximum is usually regarded as the best speed to burn at. I see no point in burning anything at 1x for 'quality'), cover art carefully scanned and printed... Heh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeliao
So, in theory if I make perfect .wav copies of my music, I could use a cheap computer with an awesome soundcard as a near perfect transport. Right or am I missing a step here?


In theory, yes. In practice, no. Unless you had and 'audiophile CD drive' (NEC, anyone?), at the very first step, you could be introducing jitter and other such nasties. There's a reason why expensive CDPs have such expensive transports. Now, there's a member here (Edwood, I think?) who's attempting to make his own CDP out of a CD drive, a DAC, and other things. Perhaps this could be what you're looking for.

(-:Stephonovich:)
 
May 23, 2004 at 9:30 PM Post #25 of 32

Mr.PD

Lives to Take It Outside.
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Posts
6,581
Likes
13
It seems to me that you guys are talking about copying music to a hard drive then placing it on a CD.
What about just placing the original CD in one drive and a CD-R in the burner drive and copying it directly? Wouldn't that give you an exact copy, sounding as good as the original?
 
May 23, 2004 at 10:17 PM Post #26 of 32

jefemeister

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Posts
2,807
Likes
11
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.PD
It seems to me that you guys are talking about copying music to a hard drive then placing it on a CD.
What about just placing the original CD in one drive and a CD-R in the burner drive and copying it directly? Wouldn't that give you an exact copy, sounding as good as the original?



It's better to not read and write at the same time. By seperating the process, you allow for a better read and you're also having the computer do only one thing instead of two. You get a better read because, with a program like EAC, you read the discs as many times as is needed until the data is right. If you were writing at the same time, you could run into problems. by recording to the drive first, you also get to keep the files for future use or can better arrange the songs, etc. I have a Tascam component burner being fed by a Wadia 16, and I still prefer using my computer for both quality and convenience.
 
May 24, 2004 at 2:33 AM Post #28 of 32

ITZBITZ

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Posts
382
Likes
11
I run burned CD's all the time for three reasons:

(1) The 50-60 minutes of music is a waste of space when I get 80 on a CD-R and my car has only a six-disc changer.
(2) In my car, I'd rather lose a CD-R than an original CD.
(3) I seem to never get my loaned CD's back, so I only loan copies in case they happen to never return.

That being said, FLAC->NERO->CD-R is my typically routine to ensure I get the full enjoyment on the road. At home, it's FLAC or the original disc, depending upon the source.

And after a few times of verifying my burns via another EAC rip and a binary compare to the original WAV, I finally stopped doing it as the copies were identical every time.

As far as offset, using the AccurateRip plug-in for EAC seems to have fixed that problem (as if it ever was one audibly) as well.
 
May 24, 2004 at 8:54 AM Post #29 of 32

Distroyed

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Posts
1,089
Likes
12
Sadly, AccurateRip is useless for me since I don't have any of the pop albums that it requires to get started. Any way to use this program properly without them?

Btw, Itz, at what speed do you burn your cd's for music?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top