[eyeteeth]

Redbook playback quality can be the pits and this guy is claiming it is literally the pits themselves that are the achilles heel of CDs.

"Ladies and gentlemen, we're talking master tape-type quality from Redbook CDs. Yes, like the ones you already own. As it turns out, there was as much hidden information on CDs as there was on LPs, just waiting to be disgorged."

I've heard this before when upsampling arrived but I can't help but cross my fingers and wish this guys extravagant claims are true. He does have a financial interest! He certainly is bold. But I do think of positive-feedback as having integrity.

There is a $5 offer to send in a CD have it re-recorded and mailed back to you. The machine itself is $525.

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Iss...alityCheck.htm

It was $5 after all. D'oh!

 

[Jahn]

IT IS ALL TRUE!

Well, i'm not sure how it's done, but the test CD that Lan burned me was better sounding than my original gold CD. sad. I'm sure Lan can jump in and say what kind of burner that way, i dont think it's made anymore.

 

[eyeteeth]

Jahn, how much better? That I think is the question.

 

[gaboo]

$0 equivalent: rip to a hard disk.

 

[cosmopragma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaboo $0 equivalent: rip to a hard disk.

My initial thought, too.
Am I missing something?

 

[eyeteeth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmopragma Am I missing something?

Am I missing something? We're talking two different technologies are we not? I'm not too familiar with hard drives as sources as I don't use one for such.

Hard drives sound much superior to CDs?

 

[Talonz]

From my understanding, the same results can be achieved with a digital rip and a new copy a la a good cd-burner.

 

[psychogentoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talonz From my understanding, the same results can be achieved with a digital rip and a new copy a la a good cd-burner.

Thats the impression that I got. So instead of having the pits on a CD from a glass master, you're using opaque dye on a CD-R.

So how does translate into sound quality being that the bits are still the same. Is this a function of how the laser reads those bits from the two different surfaces? placebo/psychoacoustics?

 

[Glassman]

most likely placebo, although there might be some scientifical reasons for it sounding 'better'.. usually servo controller is on the same die as digital audio interface and sometimes clock generator too.. if the CD is harder to read for the servo mechanism must took much more actions than if the CD was perfect, noise from the switching transistors can get through the chip or through the power lines and affect the jitter.. this is probably the only realistic explanation.. I personaly don't believe in it causing perceivable differences, especially on well designed players.. as long as the data are read ok, every CD have to sound the same..

 

[gaboo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyeteeth Hard drives sound much superior to CDs?

Superior to Redbook (Audio CD). If bit errors "made it" out of a HD as easily as out of CD Audio, how long do you think your PC would run on average? If Redbook format were used for data, how often do you think you'd have corrupted programs installed?

Redbook used 2352 byte sectors. Mode 1 data CD uses 2048 bytes, there difference up to 2352 is used for error correction. Hard drives also use lots of ECC bits.

The error rate for Redbook was deemed acceptable more than 20 years ago when the standard was drafted. If we were to believe certain legends, their goal was to get the 74mins required to fit Beethoven's 9th symphony on one disc.

 

[eyeteeth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaboo If bit errors "made it" out of a HD as easily as out of CD Audio, how long do you think your PC would run on average?

I see.

That seems logical.
Frankly I'm ignorant about hard drive technology as a source as I've always discounted this option for myself due to the noisiness of my PC.

 

[Dreamslacker]

I already have a copy of almost all my CD's on Mitsui Gold CD-R's.
I have to say that there is a difference in sound even on the different brands and types of CD-R's used.
From best sonics (and readability) to worse:
Mitsui/ Kodak Ultima Gold;
Ricoh/ Taiyo Yuden Gold;
Metal AZO (Mitsubishi/ Verbatim);
Prodisc Gold OEM's/ Super-AZO;
Emtec (Occasionally unreadable on CDP's and computer drives);

Discs were read & burnt at 4X, RAW-DAO using CloneCD 3.X.
With the demise of CloneCD from ElaborateBytes, I'm now using Alcohol 120% with great success.

 

[kunwar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreamslacker I already have a copy of almost all my CD's on Mitsui Gold CD-R's. I have to say that there is a difference in sound even on the different brands and types of CD-R's used. From best sonics (and readability) to worse: Mitsui/ Kodak Ultima Gold; Ricoh/ Taiyo Yuden Gold; Metal AZO (Mitsubishi/ Verbatim); Prodisc Gold OEM's/ Super-AZO; Emtec (Occasionally unreadable on CDP's and computer drives); Discs were read & burnt at 4X, RAW-DAO using CloneCD 3.X. With the demise of CloneCD from ElaborateBytes, I'm now using Alcohol 120% with great success.

I concur with Dreamslacker's observations
I have used Kodak Ultima and Taiyo yuden as well as TDK Gold and several other brands including Emtec
The emtec is so bad that it is pretty much avoidable
The Kodak ultima's are gr8 but unfortunately I can't find any stock anymore. So it is down to TDK gold's and Taiyo's

Iwould recommend backing up to FLAC as sson as one buys any new CD's cause FLAC's are data and data is a lot harder to corrupt. Which is why software from scratched CD's can still work

 

[Glassman]

sound like placebo really, I can't believe there are any read errors going on with any of the burned discs.. try outputting digitaly from the CD player to soundcard and compare with original files.. I bet they will match, so what sonic differences we are talkin' about here??

 

[breez]

"RealityCheck™"

What irony!