1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Testing audiophile claims and myths

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by prog rock man, May 3, 2010.
900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909
911 912
  1. bigshot
    It takes a couple of minutes, and the surface always remains shiny, not matte surface like Mark74 describes.
  2. 71 dB
    Ok, thank you!
  3. KeithEmo
    Amazingly - some people just like to know how the stuff they use actually works.
    However, in this case, a lot of people seem to have less favorable experiences with CDs than you have.
    (Which tends to make many people even more interested in how they work - and the details about why sometimes they don't.)

    There's also the fact that, unlike formats like vinyl and tape, one of the main selling points of CDs is that they deliver "perfect data" that doesn't deteriorate as they wear.
    Therefore, some people are actually curious about whether CDs manage to live up to that claim, and how they might do so.

    (You really do seem to find the world a very boring place.... where "nothing is interesting" and "everything just works good enough for everyone".)

  4. KeithEmo
    That sounds like a good - and readily available - solution.

  5. bigshot
    There's also a Meguiar's Plastic cleaner which is useful too. Used together with the polish it's a quick two step process. Discs look brand new afterwards. The only CD I haven't been able to rescue is one that had a kitchen chair set down on it and sat upon. I got rid of the scratch, but the mylar layer inside was deformed.

    There are enough things to worry about in this world than to worry about things that just work. I'm a practical soul.
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2019
  6. analogsurviver
    This goes to show you have most likely never heard CD - or CD-R, for that matter - performing at its peak capabilities.

    On a FAR more subtle level, there are - clearly audible - differences to be had. I did describe how I use CDs and CD-Rs - it is more time consuming, but it does get better results in the end. Since I did record over 20 commercially available CDs, I do know how they SHOULD sound - most definitely, I have been there.

    As a matter of fact, I do make a AMQR CD-R copy of EVERY commercially available CD I have recorded; if it is longer in duration than 63 minutes, that means splitting the programe into a 2 CD-R discs set. What I DO get is more resolution - particularly in the quiet end. The sound of decay travelling across/bouncing off the boundaries of the recording venue is clearly better reproduced. Similar can be said about better recorded commercially available CDs - the one I am positive about is https://www.discogs.com/Vlatko-Stefanovski-Miroslav-Tadić-Krushevo/release/4388610
    It truly came to life only after being transferred to CD-R using AMRQ process.
    I have to stress that I have NOT started ripping my CD collection - yet. One day, if nothing more interesting will be showing up - an unlikely possibility.

    And NOTHING can prepare one for the AMQR CD-R version of the https://www.discogs.com/Frank-Zappa-Civilization-Phaze-III/release/1386901
    It takes mighty decent subwoofer(s) to handle the synth of this recording - it goes way above anything possible with acoustic instruments. The regular release is "decent" - but turns into a mashed pulp when compared with what AMQR version made from that same disc can do.

    If you REALLY want to have best bass there is, it is only available in DIY : S.A.F.E. https://patents.google.com/patent/US4168761
    I do have the original Speaker Builder magazines - and a number of speakers have been made over the years. Even a "lightweight" version of SAFE housing a 12" driver will tip the scales at over 70 kg - for a single speaker.
    In extremely short recapitulation : extension as in transmission line enclosures, but with "normal" efficiency - and better transients.
    Hooster likes this.
  7. bigshot
  8. analogsurviver
    Sorry to hear such a comment.

    Being yes-man to all the guys quoted in links to your posts is a safe, comfortable position to have - and your mission is the suppression of everything that might challenge those written in stone claims.

    Even stone gets abraded/transformed in the end ; it only takes a LOT of time for all the trials to finally succeed.
    Hooster likes this.
  9. Mark74
    Some seriously worthy practical advice, hidden here on the audiophile "myths" thread. I'm stoked.

    I'm now on the lookout for said type of CD polisher. Not seen many, though can recall seeing "manual" polishers a while back (not motorised); think they 'guide' your polishing motion, but perhaps they slow you down.

    Didn't know of these; will definitely be getting some.

    I'm lost on that one - I always go non-stop until my wrist gives up, then try out the disc. Is this a special type of toothpaste; what does the toothpaste do when you let it sit on the CD undisturbed for 10 minutes ?
  10. Mark74
    Off the bat I must say I have quite a bit of respect for all studio recording engineers - in any field people at the coal face seem to learn a lot, and they seem to have to learn it quickly.


    If the above image summarizes the AMQR process, it would suggest that it makes it easier for an optical drive to read the bits (or the "pits", as it were).
    But, a non-AMQR CD should sound the same as an AMQR CD as long as the optical drive can read both discs without uncorrectable errors. Is that a fair statement Analog ?
  11. bigshot
    'm afraid that is another solution to a problem that doesn't exist. But it is a very good way to produce out of spec discs.

    I have a blu-ray drive that can read CDs, DVDs and Blu-Rays all at many times normal playback speed..., and whenever I do a checksum, it always comes out perfect. Why would a drive have trouble playing a CD perfectly at a much slower speed?

    If you come up with a disc that is in reasonably good condition that errors, odds are the problem is an out of align player, not the spacing between the pits on the CD.
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2019
    castleofargh likes this.
  12. Hooster
    Is somebody still using CDs?
    Bytor123 likes this.
  13. analogsurviver
    In a nutshell, it is.

    But, I will put it this way. A friend ( with tons more money than myself ) has been mocking my - to him - super time consuming "process" in order to get decent sound off CD optical media. He DID take care of obtaining some black CD-R blanks ( it is NOT a gimmick, apearently laser can focus better on that surface ... ), for which he claimed he can produce as good or better results in about 10-15 min per disc.

    I brought a commercially released CD and an AMQR CD-R copy ( of course, using carbon fibre CD mat both for reading the CD and for burning the CD-R ) I made at home a day earlier. He took my commercially released CD and made a CD-R copy to that black blank in about 15 minutes. No mat - as it can not be used at those spinning speeds.

    Then, we listened. To all three discs.
    "F..k you...!!!" was the only comment he made - and that hastily made CD-R copy has been in the dustbin before the "u" from "you" died out in the room.

    Yamaha drives capable of writing AMQR can do it also faster than at 1x - but, although I DID try burning faster, the results have not been that good. I will have to check the user manual for the CRW-F1 drive, which also states that either the rotational speed of the disc or the distance between the pits is CONSTANT - making the life easier for the optical drive, as it does not have to constantly adjust all parameters.

    It is funny to WATCH the results with AMQR discs. Some players won't accept it ... some take several tries before it is accepted ( and plays than better than standard disc ), some, mainly newer machines, treat it business as usual, some CD-R recorders do not recognize and display any CD-TEXT info on the AMQR CD-R - and some AMQR CD-Rs, on the same CD-R recorder and burned with the same process on same burner, also display CD-TEXT info properly.

    I would take better SQ over CD-TEXT info any day in a millenium. Many commercially released CDs lack the CD-TEXT info to begin with ... and one has to manually add it ( or import from the internet libraries ) for the CD-R copy - either normal or AMQR.

    AMQR CD-R copy read and burned at 1x ( with mat...) can - almost - be said to be "hand made". It is most probably the most time consuming way ( burning a 63 min program AMQR disc takes more than 80 minutes at "1x" ) - but also the one offering the best SQ.
  14. analogsurviver
    Love it or hate it, CD still IS de facto standard in recorded music today - although it is being seriously challenged by MP3 as far as general public acceptance is concerned.

    However, recent sales figures show that vinyl sales is superseding the CD sales .... - again, after being superseded by the CD in early 80s.
  15. bigshot
    I burn at the top speed my drive is capable of. That is the speed the drive is designed to burn at. You're more likely to get errors at lower speed than the fastest. However, I almost never get drive related errors. It's always the media. (Memorex blanks suck.)

    "Burned with a mat"... Hogwash.
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2019
    gopack87 and bfreedma like this.
900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909
911 912

Share This Page