Quality Music CD-R's?

DarqueKnight

Ok.

So why do my burned CD-R's sound better than the original CD?

timlitton

Placebo effect I'd imagine.

dorokusai

I agree. I haven't heard a difference either but still use MoFi.

DarqueKnight

Why do you use a higher cost alternative if you don't hear an improvement?

DarqueKnight

timlitton wrote: »

I've seen the discussion of whether the media brand affects general sound quality and it's like asking whether a Word Document looks better from a Verbatim CD or a Maxell CD.

Your analogy glosses over a huge distinction. While a Word document and a music file are both digital files, the complexities of the analog to digital to analog conversion process is very different for music. It is much, much more difficult to generate an acceptible analog to digital to analog conversion of a complex music signal, with all its harmonic structure intact, that it is for a simple text document.

If better media can take some stress off the processor, this can result in better sound.

timlitton

I use higher cost media too. But I use it for overall reliabilty rates. I don't want to get halfway through a movie burn and have it fail. I also don't want certain players rejecting a burnt cd. Quality media has an affect, but it's more about reliability than general sound quality.

dorokusai

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Why do you use a higher cost alternative if you don't hear an improvement?

Because I can and I like the color. I don't need to find a deeper meaning in everything I do in this crazy hobby.

DarqueKnight

timlitton wrote: »

I use higher cost media too. But I use it for overall reliabilty rates. I don't want to get halfway through a movie burn and have it fail. I also don't want certain players rejecting a burnt cd. Quality media has an affect, but it's more about reliability than general sound quality.

That makes sense.

dorokusai wrote: »

Because I can and I like the color. I don't need to find a deeper meaning in everything I do in this crazy hobby.

Neither do I. Whatever floats.

dorokusai

I'm a simple man Raife.

DarqueKnight

As am I. I've lost count of the number of things, audio and otherwise, that I've acquired just because they were pretty...like the Cardas binding posts on my SDA's.:)

dorokusai

I'm easily distracted by shiny objects....that's how F1Nut lured me to his house the first time.

DarqueKnight

That's surprising. I had always heard that he used candy. Although, I can see how shiny objects would work better from a distance.

dorokusai

By shiny object I mean stainless steel .45....and by lured I mean saying "Sure man, no problem, LOVE to."

Now back to your regularly scheduled debate on CD-R's

timlitton

There's candy?

renowilliams

I use a Xonar d2x sound card in my computer and ran an optical cable to my reciever. I don't bother burning and it sounds great. Maybe you should consider configuring this way

dorokusai

I'd be REALLY suprised if I don't go with a music server this year.

Fongolio

Most audiophiles will agree that a copy of a cd sounds better than the original store bought. Why? Quite simply most mass produced cd's contain a lot of write errors that need to be corrected in playback. That degrades the sound. A copy of the original will fix some of the errors when copied and introduce fewer errors in the final write. Thus slightly better sound. Robert Harley has written about this in The Absolute Sound.

danger boy

Fongolio wrote: »

Most audiophiles will agree that a copy of a cd sounds better than the original store bought. Why? Quite simply most mass produced cd's contain a lot of write errors that need to be corrected in playback. That degrades the sound. A copy of the original will fix some of the errors when copied and introduce fewer errors in the final write. Thus slightly better sound. Robert Harley has written about this in The Absolute Sound.

I have to disagree. Any time you made a copy of ANYTHING. be it digital or not.. it's a copy... yeah maybe bit for bit it's identical.. it's still a copy.

I can't see how a copy of a store bought CD with write errors could be corrected.. since you are making a identical copy.. therefor any errors would copy as errors on the burned CD. am I right or what?

I rest my case.

woodsman10b

Motzart wrote: »

Is there any such thing anymore?
I was using Maxell Music Pro CD-R's but can't find em in my area anymore.
They worked great!!

I recently bought some "average" Sony Music CD-R's and when I burned one it sounded like crap!
Static and such......original file on my puter was fine....I wasn't happy!
I later burned the tracks to a regular Maxell CD-R and it sounds just fine.
Is it me or is a regular Music CD more durable than a CD-R burn?
Surface of a CD-R seems more tender to scratching to me.

When burning any music the most important thing to look for is the Bitrate, the higher the bitrate number the better sound quality. Personally I wont use anything under a 240 bitrate, from what ive learned anything lower starts to drop off considerably in sound quality.

As far as the durability of original cd's to recordable cd's, yes there is a difference. From the factory after they record an original it has a protective film applied, thus causing it to be thicker and more durable. Because the recordables cannot have this protective film applied before they are written on, they are less durable and thinner.

Ive always used Memorex cdr's with great success and no complaints!

megasat16

danger boy wrote: »

I have to disagree. Any time you made a copy of ANYTHING. be it digital or not.. it's a copy... yeah maybe bit for bit it's identical.. it's still a copy.

I can't see how a copy of a store bought CD with write errors could be corrected.. since you are making a identical copy.. therefor any errors would copy as errors on the burned CD. am I right or what?

I rest my case.

Unless you have activated RAW Read / Write Mode (aka Blind Read / Write mode) with specially designed copying software, any data Read from CD is error corrected before it gets written on the new media again.

But under any case, this scenario applies to direct Copying and not like Rip and Burn type.

If you rip the CDs first to different format such as FLAC or APE or any other lossless format, the software you use may actually have options to normalize the audio file during ripping (thus makes the sound better? and more dynamics?)

Likewise, if you copy the lossless files back to the media, you have options to normalize these audio files again. For better or worse, the Ripped and Burned files may have many reasons to sound different (not necessary better) from the factory direct CDs and directly copied CDs.

Fongolio

megasat16 wrote: »

Unless you have activated RAW Read / Write Mode (aka Blind Read / Write mode) with specially designed copying software, any data Read from CD is error corrected before it gets written on the new media again.

My point precisely.

F1nut

dorokusai wrote: »

By shiny object I mean stainless steel .45....and by lured I mean saying "Sure man, no problem, LOVE to."

Hehe.......

timlitton

Fongolio wrote: »

Most audiophiles will agree that a copy of a cd sounds better than the original store bought.

Most? That's debatable.

Fongolio wrote: »

A copy of the original will fix some of the errors when copied and introduce fewer errors in the final write. Thus slightly better sound.

Except for the fact that also introduces both read and write errors that have to be corrected. Also, what do you believe is error correcting the CD burning? Cross-interleaved Reed-Solomon code. It's the exact same solution you have in your CD Player.

megasat16 wrote: »

Likewise, if you copy the lossless files back to the media, you have options to normalize these audio files again. For better or worse, the Ripped and Burned files may have many reasons to sound different (not necessary better) from the factory direct CDs and directly copied CDs.

Normalization alters the levels of the original Master file. A bit by bit recording shouldn't need normalization. It's akin to adding equalization or compression (dynamic range compression not space reduction compression) to the CD before you burn it and only should be considered on MP3 files or compressed files - not CD duplication or replication. The what the original mastering is for.

Anyway, if you hear a difference in burnt CD's? Burn away. If you hear a difference and it makes you happy , then do it. I'll stick to the original recordings and save some time and money.

heiney9

woodsman10b wrote: »

When burning any music the most important thing to look for is the Bitrate, the higher the bitrate number the better sound quality. Personally I wont use anything under a 240 bitrate, from what ive learned anything lower starts to drop off considerably in sound quality.

When you copy cd's the bitrate is 1411 kbps............so I have no idea what you are talking about. When copying you can't specify a bit rate..........it's all or nothing.

I suspect you are talking about making lossy conversion's NOT direct copies of the cd. In that case anything less than 1411 kbps sucks. Lossy conversion sucks and has no place in an audiophile system.

H9

heiney9

Typically you do NOT want to use the normalize function:

normalize is a tool for adjusting the volume of audio files to a standard level. This is useful for things like creating mixed CD's and mp3 collections, where different recording levels on different albums can cause the volume to vary greatly from song to song.

For a non-audiophile compilation or mp3 compilation for say an iPod, or car system it might make listening more consistent. But do NOT use it when copying single cd's for use in an audiophile rig.

Fongolio

timlitton wrote: »

Most? That's debatable.

Normalization alters the levels of the original Master file. A bit by bit recording shouldn't need normalization. It's akin to adding equalization or compression (dynamic range compression not space reduction compression) to the CD before you burn it and only should be considered on MP3 files or compressed files - not CD duplication or replication. The what the original mastering is for.

Anyway, if you hear a difference in burnt CD's? Burn away. If you hear a difference and it makes you happy , then do it. I'll stick to the original recordings and save some time and money.

True. True. And ok thanks.