CD vs. CR-R...

[PeruvianSkies]

Got a question that has been buggin' me for quite some time, but never brought the question up, so here goes...

Rarely do I play CD-R's in my setup, mostly I use them in the car, but occassionally someone will burn me a copy of an album (like bobsticks sending out a comp) and i'll have to play the CR-R instead of the regular Redbook CD. However, I have compared back and forth and I never get the same sound from the CR-R's and I was wondering if there is something that can be done about it. Are there certain CD-R's that I should invest in for audio quality or is it a lost cause? Does it matter how I am burning the disc? I typically burn straight on my laptop (Mac) using iTunes and I have the iTunes setting for Apple Lossless.

[Troy]

There is no difference in the media you use WRT sound quality. The 5 cent off-brand Chinese CD-Rs sound exactly the same as the one dollar Sony or Maxell discs.

The difference lies in stability. Sometimes the cheap discs don't play in some players. Sometimes they skip or "tick" on playback because the recording layer is too thin and the player can't read the disc in real time, so it hesitates.

But if you are using the exact same source material on the recordings I defy ANYONE to tell the difference in a blind A/B test between cheap and expensive discs.

Either you are accidentally burning your discs as low end mp3s or you are only imagining this perceived lowering of fidelity. To prevent the former, go to iTunes and the View> View Options and activate the "kind" checkbox and it will show you what kind of file you are working with. Also, use Preferences> Advanced> Burning to make sure you are burning in the right format.

[PeruvianSkies]

There is no difference in the media you use WRT sound quality. The 5 cent off-brand Chinese CD-Rs sound exactly the same as the one dollar Sony or Maxell discs.

The difference lies in stability. Sometimes the cheap discs don't play in some players. Sometimes they skip or "tick" on playback because the recording layer is too thin and the player can't read the disc in real time, so it hesitates.

But if you are using the exact same source material on the recordings I defy ANYONE to tell the difference in a blind A/B test between cheap and expensive discs.

Either you are accidentally burning your discs as low end mp3s or you are only imagining this perceived lowering of fidelity. To prevent the former, go to iTunes and the View> View Options and activate the "kind" checkbox and it will show you what kind of file you are working with. Also, use Preferences> Advanced> Burning to make sure you are burning in the right format.

TROY,

Should I checkmark to burn a CD or an MP3 CD??? Those are my options under burning.

[ForeverAutumn]

I typically burn straight on my laptop (Mac) using iTunes and I have the iTunes setting for Apple Lossless.

Is the original file also Apple Lossless? I once asked a friend burn a disk for me that turned out unlistenable. It turned out that the original files were MP3s and then he converted them to WAV files for me so that I could play the disk on a CD player. It didn't turn out so well.

[GMichael]

Most of the time I use my CD-R player. I put a CD in and record it to the hard drive. Then put a new CD-R in and burn it from the hard drive. The recordings come out well, but the high end is never quite as good as the originals. When I play them back in the car, I either have to bump the treble up or the base down a notch to get the same sound as the originals would give me. Never gave it much thought as it's only a minor bother.

[Troy]

Should I checkmark to burn a CD or an MP3 CD??? Those are my options under burning.

Burn it as a regular CD, not an mp3 CD. Bear in mind that you can record mp3 files onto a regular CD too, so don't think that just because it's a regular CD that you will have improved sound quality. It's all about your source files, if they are crappy sounding mp3s to begin with, there's nothing you can do to make them better.

The beauty of mp3 discs is that you can put 8+ hours of music (ripped at hi-enough-fi for me 192K) on one disc. I have a pile of these for the car.

[PeruvianSkies]

Is there a difference between these two options: 1. insert a regular CD into my apple laptop and open the disc up, then click and drag all of the tracks onto my desktop, then open them up in iTunes and burn a CD from there. 2. open iTunes and insert the same CD into my laptop and choose import CD, then burn disc from that.

I typically do option 2 and I am wondering if that is why I am noticing a big difference in the quality. The reason this came up is because a few months ago I was trying to take all of the discs that I normally use for DEMO purposes and consolidate them all into 1 master disc that I could use for calibration and testing. The results though are poor as the master disc does not deliver the high quality of the regular CD's that I use. Here are some of the differences:

1. the volume is significantly different as the CD-R is much lower in volume.
2. lack of bass.
3. lack of overall fidelity.
4. I seem to get a bit of background 'noise'.
5. there are clicks and pops on occasion.

[Troy]

Take a look at the disc you made in iTunes with the "kind" feature turned on so you can see what kind of files you are putting on the disc.

Option 2 is the preferred way. Make sure that when you import the songs that you are importing WAV or AIFF files and not mp3 (or apple lossless). This is set in Preferences> Advanced> Importing. You may also try using the "Error Correction" setting there as well. It slows down the import process, but is more stable. This is true of burn speed. I use "Maximum possible" (Preferences> Advanced> Burning) rather than setting a specific speed.

Background noise and clicks are from too fast ripping/burning combined with inferior quality discs as outlined in my first post.

[nobody]

Use Exact Audio Copy, it can be downloaded for free. And, burn at a slower speed.

I've actually heard from several people (just passing it on, can't personally confirm) that if you burn a disc carefully that the sound can actually improve as the timing of everything gets rechecked and error correction will fix any possible timing errors from the original.

I won't vouch for them sounding better, but I've burned plenty of discs and have only had quality problems when burning too fast. In those cases, I'd get a tiny sounding disc with droputs.

[PeruvianSkies]

Use Exact Audio Copy, it can be downloaded for free. And, burn at a slower speed.

I've actually heard from several people (just passing it on, can't personally confirm) that if you burn a disc carefully that the sound can actually improve as the timing of everything gets rechecked and error correction will fix any possible timing errors from the original.

I won't vouch for them sounding better, but I've burned plenty of discs and have only had quality problems when burning too fast. In those cases, I'd get a tiny sounding disc with droputs.

Is there a link for the download and will it work on Mac OSX platform?

[Troy]

Is there a link for the download and will it work on Mac OSX platform?

One of the fundamental differences with the Mac platform is it's seamlessness. Unlike Windows machines, there's no need to install 3rd party software and all it's attendant compatibility issues with the Win system.

I know people with 5 CD burning software packages they've installed on their Microshaft OS computers and they can't get any of them to run correctly because each one conflicts with the other.

iTunes is built into OSX. Would you use a different e-mail program on your Mac than "Mail"? Extremely doubtful bcause of how it's integrated with everything else in the computer. iTunes is no different. It's synced with Safari and your burning hardware at the most basic level.

Sure, you can use stuff like EAC or Toast, but you don't have to. iTunes does everything EAC does and more. Learn how to use it, it's your friend.

[Dave_G]

I make my cdr's using my stereo system. Source cd player is my NAD C 525BEE.

The cdr machine is the Pioneer PDR-509.

No computers. No software. Works great. 1:1 copy speed.

The only gotcha is that you have to use "music" cdr's.

Only 1 time did I think the burned copy was sonically superior to the original, and that was a copy of the original EMI cd pressing of Jethro Tull's "Roots to Branches".

Beyond that, the copied discs sound great. Plus they are HDCD encoded too.

I am going to do another experiment using Ted Nugent's Double Live Gonzo 2 cd set. It has pretty lousy sound. I'll burn it and see how they compare.

Other weak cd's like the old Three Dog Night releases on MCA sound pretty crappy, too, might experiment with those too.

Peace, Love, Dove.

Dave_G

[nobody]

I haven't used a mac in around 10 years, so I'm not help there...didn't realize it was a mac centric question.

But, PCs are not that damn hard. I have one burning program and it does everything I need.

[Jim Clark]

wandering musings since I actually have a few minutes tonight.

Several years ago I was demo'ing speakers. The B&W (forget which models) where freaking awful sounding to me. The sales guy upon learning that he wasn't going to get a sale told me that they sounded so bright and awful was because I had brought in a CDR full of my demo toons (My very own" Best of Sounds Good vol. 1&2" for all the old timers). I said he was crazy, he said it was obvious. We agreed to put it to the test. I brought in a couple of the original discs and told him to pick them out and we agreed that if he guessed CDR or original more than half the time out of 10 guesses I'd defer to him. A couple of minutes in he knew he was screwed. Some people claim they can hear a difference but I've never even heard about anyone coming close to substantiating it.

Saw him again about 3 months ago when I needed some longer screws for a TT cartridge. We still laugh about it.

jc

[PeruvianSkies]

wandering musings since I actually have a few minutes tonight.

Several years ago I was demo'ing speakers. The B&W (forget which models) where freaking awful sounding to me. The sales guy upon learning that he wasn't going to get a sale told me that they sounded so bright and awful was because I had brought in a CDR full of my demo toons (My very own" Best of Sounds Good vol. 1&2" for all the old timers). I said he was crazy, he said it was obvious. We agreed to put it to the test. I brought in a couple of the original discs and told him to pick them out and we agreed that if he guessed CDR or original more than half the time out of 10 guesses I'd defer to him. A couple of minutes in he knew he was screwed. Some people claim they can hear a difference but I've never even heard about anyone coming close to substantiating it.

Saw him again about 3 months ago when I needed some longer screws for a TT cartridge. We still laugh about it.

jc

Well, I am telling you that the difference on my system is insanely easy to detect. I mean, my wife notices a difference...now that's saying something.

[Mike]

Well, I am telling you that the difference on my system is insanely easy to detect. I mean, my wife notices a difference...now that's saying something.

I've been bitten by this feeling i.e there is a difference between the original and a CDR a few times but each time I actually sit down and try and establish the difference I can't, at least not on my system. I must have at least a dozen or more different types of CDR's and I have no preference for one CDR over the other.

But here's the problem a friend once copied me a CD by The Blue Nile - Hats. I didn't need it cos I had the original CD but I ended up listening to it one day and thought wow this sounds brighter and definitely louder than the original. So I compared them and although the brightness/sharpness was difficult to verify it was definitley quite a few notches up on the volume. I don't know what software he used to copy with, or if he 'tweaked' the sound but there was a difference.

Since then I sometimes will even enhance an original. Now that may be blasphemy to some audiophiles but it works for me. Who hasn't thought sometimes a track lacks bass, or is overly bright but by lifting or dropping the bass/treble or lifting the output level to match other tracks you can improve the sound.

My only main tip is try to avoid fast burning speeds (40x) although that's nothing to do with the sound, it simply produces less errors e.g glitches and pops. A friend tried to convince me burn no faster than 2x for better sound quality. But come on, I mean are you telling me production CD's are burned at a slow rate for sound quality - I don't think so, not when economics are the main concern.

Cheers
Mike

[Jim Clark]

Well, I am telling you that the difference on my system is insanely easy to detect. I mean, my wife notices a difference...now that's saying something.


Well, I didn't read every word of every post on this thread but I seem to recall there was some discussion about whether or not you were even copying discs correctly. So yeah, if you've got clicks and pops in your copies you obviously have issues. What I'm talking about is when it's done correctly. I've never had a mac so sadly I can't offer any help, and I wasn't trying to. Simply pointing out that when you have the right software and properly functioning hardware you should be a very happy camper.

There are enough resources around that I'm sure you'll be able to get it worked out. Troy is a Mac god, do whatever he says : )

jc

[BradH]

The results though are poor as the master disc does not deliver the high quality of the regular CD's that I use. Here are some of the differences:

1. the volume is significantly different as the CD-R is much lower in volume.
2. lack of bass.
3. lack of overall fidelity.
4. I seem to get a bit of background 'noise'.
5. there are clicks and pops on occasion.

It almost sounds like it's converting it to mp3 and back to WAV but I'm not that familiar /w iTunes.

Troy's right about the different brands of CDR's, it's all about the stability. However, if the brand sucks enough, you can get an awful lot of error correction taking place on playback. Luckily, finding the best brand is easy. If it says "made in Japan" you're good to go. There's only one factory in Japan and it's Taiyo Yuden, the best on the market. The TY brand is more expensive but they also make discs for Fuji even though they're really TY's. Sounds crazy but it's true. I've burned over a thousand Japanese Fuji's and Feurio identfied every one of them as Taiyo Yuden.

[PeruvianSkies]

Thanks everyone for the help. I am realizing that there are a number of things that could be wrong and I am also realizing that there are two different situations that could happen. The first, is taking a regular CD and copying the files to my hard drive and then ripping a CD from there, then there is downloading music from iTunes and burning the CD from that, which I haven't had any issues with the sound quality on those discs. However, at work I have a DVD/CD tower burner that does 7:1 and I have not had any problems there either. This only seems to be a problem when I am taking the files and copying them to my hard drive and then burning a master disc of some compilations.

Although, what I should do is compare a downloaded version of an album burned to CD-R against the store-bought Redbook CD. I have never compared these before. I have compared CD and CD-R's of exact copies and there is minimal difference.

Does anyone know what I would experience a huge gap in the volume though between these???

[3-LockBox]

I have purchased CD-Rs that wound up having a ton of errors on them, but for the most part, CD-Rs are all the same.

I had a salesman say the same thing, regarding CD-R data discs and actual music CD-Rs. I told him "data is data". He said "but the pits on the music discs were specially formulated for music". I told him the pits on his face were specially formulated for celibacy.

[PeruvianSkies]

From MOFI's website....

ULTRADISC DVD-R – The Ultimate Archival Media
The 24 Karat Gold ULTRADISC™ DVD-R is designed for professional, data critical, music and graphic archival applications, and all other data storage where there is no room for loss or error. These specially gold plated ULTRADISC™ DVD-R’s ensure excellent reflectivity, no corrosion, and dramatically improved resistance to light and heat. Additional features include instantaneous pit burning (burst burning) for superior pit formation and extremely low to no error rate; and an added, patented, scratch resistant, protective surface. Due to these features, little if any error correction is required upon retrieval of information, producing precise reproduction of stored data. The average DVD-R has a projected lifespan of 20 years—if stored in ideal conditions. Accelerated aging tests show that the ULTRADISC™ DVD-R retains its specifications for more than 100 years. Now information can be accurately stored and retrieved virtually forever.

24 Karat Gold Layer
Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab created the world’s first 24 Karat Gold music CD in 1987, the ULTRADISC™. Now MFSL has put that expertise into the development of the ULTRADISC™ DVD-R. The combination of the superior reflectivity and longevity of 99.99% pure 24 Karat Gold, plus a specialized, patented bonding agent, ensures that the ULTRADISC™ DVD-R will never oxidize and fail to output information, as many commercially available DVD-R’s do. The ULTRADISC™ DVD-R is extremely stable in the real world environment.

Data Guard
The ULTRADISC™ DVD-R utilizes a state-of-the-art scratch and chemical resistant coating that provides unprecedented protection. This extremely resilient material is impervious to chemicals and 7 times more scratch resistant than an uncoated disc. DATAGUARD treated discs greatly reduce the possibility of uncorrectable errors. If a disc is accidentally mis-handled DATAGUARD will lower error correction during playback, therefore improving read accuracy.

Proprietary Photosensitive Dye
Unlike commonly used DVD-R’s containing Cyanine or Azo, which can lose their characteristics quickly from exposure to light and heat, the ULTRADISC™ DVD-R utilizes a patented photosensitive dye which ensures accurate burning and stability, plus exceptional longevity and durability. Whereas the two other types of dye are formed with linear molecular structures, which break down easily when exposed to the elements, the unique photosensitive dye utilized in the ULTRADISC™ DVD-R has an annular structure which forms a strong and stable chemical bond.

Extremely Accurate and Precise Burning
When recording speeds are increased three major problems occur. Parity of inner-code (PI) errors rise as a result of an increase of laser burning power which leads to pitch (pit?) deformation. As burning speeds rise so does signal jitter due to thermal interference. Furthermore, higher speeds cause vibration in the drive when burning the disc, increasing mechanical jitter. MFSL engineers urge professionals to burn their data in
real time, better known as 1X for the most accurate results.

Accurate and Precise Information Retrieval
The ULTRADISC™ DVD-R’s specialized dye reacts more quickly to the writing laser than do other dyes. It reacts in a "burst" mode instead of the sluggish "melt" mode. Due to this instantaneous reaction, precise pit edges are formed. This is crucial for the laser pickup to
accurately interpret the information, and thereby reducing or eliminating the use of interpolation/error correction circuitry. Additionally, a specially formulated, black ink is used to coat one side of the disc in order to reduce stray reflections which could alter readings.

Ultra Quality Control - 4 Levels of QC
Utilizing the highest quality control standards in the industry, all the manufacturing and packaging of the ULTRADISC™ DVD-R is done in
state-of-the-art cleanroom conditions. Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab has rejected random sampling techniques, which are simply not stringent enough for critical data storage applications. Instead, MFSL utilizes an unprecedented 4-level quality control process.
First, a sample out of every 3,000 discs is tested, critically examined and evaluated for over 2 hours until given the approval for MFSL specifications.

Second, every single ULTRADISC™ DVD-R is tested as it comes off the replication line. High tech, extremely sophisticated computer analysis is used to test jitter, thickness tolerances, gold uniformity and disc eccentricity.

Third, an inspector (wearing gloves) picks up and visually examines the ULTRADISC™ DVD-R’s for pinholes, gold consistency, oyster
shelling, or any other anomalies.

Fourth, another inspector repeats this very time-consuming, manual/visual examination just before the specialized, stray-reflection-reducing black coating is applied.
ULTRADISC™ DVD-R’s have to pass all levels of QC before they can be shipped. If a disc does not pass Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab’s elevated specifications, it will not be accepted as an ULTRADISC™ DVD-R. This is MFSL’s guarantee to the user that every ULTRADISC™ DVD-R is the finest engineered recordable media available.

[3-LockBox]

Maybe Mofi will come out with half-speed mastered CDs

[Jim Clark]

From MOFI's website....

ULTRADISC DVD-R – The Ultimate Archival Media
The 24 Karat Gold ULTRADISC™ DVD-R is designed for professional, data critical, music and graphic archival applications, and all other data storage where there is no room for loss or error. These specially gold plated ULTRADISC™ DVD-R’s ensure excellent reflectivity, no corrosion, and dramatically improved resistance to light and heat. Additional features include instantaneous pit burning (burst burning) for superior pit formation and extremely low to no error rate; and an added, patented, scratch resistant, protective surface. Due to these features, little if any error correction is required upon retrieval of information, producing precise reproduction of stored data. The average DVD-R has a projected lifespan of 20 years—if stored in ideal conditions. Accelerated aging tests show that the ULTRADISC™ DVD-R retains its specifications for more than 100 years. Now information can be accurately stored and retrieved virtually forever.

24 Karat Gold Layer
Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab created the world’s first 24 Karat Gold music CD in 1987, the ULTRADISC™. Now MFSL has put that expertise into the development of the ULTRADISC™ DVD-R. The combination of the superior reflectivity and longevity of 99.99% pure 24 Karat Gold, plus a specialized, patented bonding agent, ensures that the ULTRADISC™ DVD-R will never oxidize and fail to output information, as many commercially available DVD-R’s do. The ULTRADISC™ DVD-R is extremely stable in the real world environment.

Data Guard
The ULTRADISC™ DVD-R utilizes a state-of-the-art scratch and chemical resistant coating that provides unprecedented protection. This extremely resilient material is impervious to chemicals and 7 times more scratch resistant than an uncoated disc. DATAGUARD treated discs greatly reduce the possibility of uncorrectable errors. If a disc is accidentally mis-handled DATAGUARD will lower error correction during playback, therefore improving read accuracy.

Proprietary Photosensitive Dye
Unlike commonly used DVD-R’s containing Cyanine or Azo, which can lose their characteristics quickly from exposure to light and heat, the ULTRADISC™ DVD-R utilizes a patented photosensitive dye which ensures accurate burning and stability, plus exceptional longevity and durability. Whereas the two other types of dye are formed with linear molecular structures, which break down easily when exposed to the elements, the unique photosensitive dye utilized in the ULTRADISC™ DVD-R has an annular structure which forms a strong and stable chemical bond.

Extremely Accurate and Precise Burning
When recording speeds are increased three major problems occur. Parity of inner-code (PI) errors rise as a result of an increase of laser burning power which leads to pitch (pit?) deformation. As burning speeds rise so does signal jitter due to thermal interference. Furthermore, higher speeds cause vibration in the drive when burning the disc, increasing mechanical jitter. MFSL engineers urge professionals to burn their data in
real time, better known as 1X for the most accurate results.

Accurate and Precise Information Retrieval
The ULTRADISC™ DVD-R’s specialized dye reacts more quickly to the writing laser than do other dyes. It reacts in a "burst" mode instead of the sluggish "melt" mode. Due to this instantaneous reaction, precise pit edges are formed. This is crucial for the laser pickup to
accurately interpret the information, and thereby reducing or eliminating the use of interpolation/error correction circuitry. Additionally, a specially formulated, black ink is used to coat one side of the disc in order to reduce stray reflections which could alter readings.

Ultra Quality Control - 4 Levels of QC
Utilizing the highest quality control standards in the industry, all the manufacturing and packaging of the ULTRADISC™ DVD-R is done in
state-of-the-art cleanroom conditions. Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab has rejected random sampling techniques, which are simply not stringent enough for critical data storage applications. Instead, MFSL utilizes an unprecedented 4-level quality control process.
First, a sample out of every 3,000 discs is tested, critically examined and evaluated for over 2 hours until given the approval for MFSL specifications.

Second, every single ULTRADISC™ DVD-R is tested as it comes off the replication line. High tech, extremely sophisticated computer analysis is used to test jitter, thickness tolerances, gold uniformity and disc eccentricity.

Third, an inspector (wearing gloves) picks up and visually examines the ULTRADISC™ DVD-R’s for pinholes, gold consistency, oyster
shelling, or any other anomalies.

Fourth, another inspector repeats this very time-consuming, manual/visual examination just before the specialized, stray-reflection-reducing black coating is applied.
ULTRADISC™ DVD-R’s have to pass all levels of QC before they can be shipped. If a disc does not pass Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab’s elevated specifications, it will not be accepted as an ULTRADISC™ DVD-R. This is MFSL’s guarantee to the user that every ULTRADISC™ DVD-R is the finest engineered recordable media available.


I wouldn't say it's bullxxxx. They do not claim their discs sound better anywhere in that little schpiel. They do say they last longer, are sturdier, and have a superior QC process. I would probably be inclined to believe that. They've got to do something to warrant a premium price tag. Gold has to sound better than aluminum, doesn't it : )
They do imply a lot of stuff, but stop short of making unverified claims. Pretty much supports what Troy wrote in his first post from what I see.

The only thing I can see is the burn in real time (1x) theory. If you happen to buy into that, and I don't, you could apply that standard to any old CDR/DVDR.

Regards,
jc

[ForeverAutumn]

Rich, if you're having problems with pops and hissing, make sure that you aren't doing anything else on your computer while you're burning a disk. My experience is that disks burn better if there is no other computer activity to get in the way. I walk away from the computer and come back when it's finished.

[Troy]

He said "but the pits on the music discs were specially formulated for music". I told him the pits on his face were specially formulated for celibacy.

LOL

He's here all week, try the veal.

[Troy]

Yes Peru, it's mostly marketing-speak.

Tell me:

Have you checked to see what format you are importing as in Prefs> Advanced?

Are you burning as an mp3 disc or an Audio CD?

Do you have Sound Enhancer and Sound Check turned off in Prefs> Playback?

Have you looked at "Kind" in iTunes from the disc you made to see if they are mp3s?

[BradH]

Yes Peru, it's mostly marketing-speak.

Well, no, that's actually technically solid and, like Jim pointed out, nowhere near the Wooden Volume Knob school of wankery. Although that "reflectivity" crap smells a little of green markers. Lasers in cd players have been self adjusting since the late 80's.

I had forgotten about MoFi's discs when I said Taiyo Yuden was the best on the market. MoFi's could very well be better but I ain't buyin'.

[PeruvianSkies]

Troy,

Here is what I found out:

There are two file types listed under "kind" in iTunes for me. The files that I have taken from a CD are listed as Apple Lossless and files that I have downloaded from iTunes are Protected AAC files. I also noticed that the bit-rates are significantly different as well, the AAC files are all 128kbps, whereas the Apple Lossless files are much higher, some of them are around 1411kbps. I burn my discs at 8X, and I can go up to 48X, but I don't. I also see an advanced option where I can convert my AAC files to Apple Lossless.

When I am importing they are Apple Lossless (I am guessing this is the best) and I also have the Error Correction box checked. For burning I am burning as an Audio CD, not an MP3 CD and I am using Sound Check as well in that process.

Am I missing anything???

Just for the fun of it I am going to try and burn another compilation disc with some of my DEMO QUALITY CD's and see what happens.

[Troy]

The AAC 128s are lo-fi. Unusable on anything but a boombox or most factory car systems. No, you can't make it sound better.

The Apple Lossless mp4 thing stinks too. There may be a compatibility issue there with your playback unit, especially if it's more than 5 years old.

AIFF or WAV is the format to use if you want 100% duplication of a sound file. They are compatible 100% with every player. Files are big, 10mb per minute, but if you want hi-fi dupes, it's the only way to go.

For smaller files I use the 192k mp3 setting and find that those sound close to perfect even on my best system. I have 3500 songs ripped from CD in my computer (roughly 20GB) and between it, a whole pile of 8+ hour mp3 discs for the car and my iPod that plugs into every system in the house (and car), I virtually never touch the CD collection any more.

WAV or 192k mp3 are the only 2 formats anyone should ever need. Less is more, simpler is better.

Don't force your burner to use a specific speed. Use the "Maximum Possible" setting. The computer knows how fast it needs to go.

[Rich-n-Texas]

WAV or 192k mp3 are the only 2 formats anyone should ever need. Less is more, simpler is better.

Don't force your burner to use a specific speed. Use the "Maximum Possible" setting. The computer knows how fast it needs to go.
Two very good points. The argument that wav files take up too much disk space is pretty much moot, what with the advent of terabyte desktop PC hard drives. Wav files represent the closest match to the original content, and you can buy a 500GB drive these days for less than $100.

People mention hearing pops and clicks in their recordings when they burn CD's at the player's max speed, but sometimes the recording media just isn't up to the task.

[PeruvianSkies]

Should I use the default settings for the WAV files, or should I change the sample rate, sample size, and channels?

[Rich-n-Texas]

My suggestion PS would be to experiment. I don't know your PC's specs but IIRC you've got a Mac, correct? I've gone back to using Windows Media Player because with my current rig (old Gateway PII 400MHz PC running Win2K), iTunes hogs up 97% of the CPU's resources. If you have CD-RW disks, you can always write over them.

[Slosh]

FWIW, once I tried a little experiment. I ripped Neutral Milk Hotel's On Avery Island, which is a gapless CD (all of the songs fade into each other), with as many lossless file types and software as I had on hand. Each type of encoder/software was used to rip non-consecutive tracks. This included:

>.wav ripped with Nero
>Apple Lossless and AIFF ripped with iTunes
>WMA Lossless ripped with Windows Media Player 10 and dBpowerAMP's Audio CD input
>APE and Shorten ripped with dBpowerAMP
>FLAC ripped with MediaMonkey and EAC.

Then I burned it all back to CD using Nero.

The results - exactly identical to the original, down to the gap-length frames.

Lossless couldn't be called lossless if it wasn't bit-perfect.

[PeruvianSkies]

So, after all of the suggestions I decided to try a few experiments...here's what I did and the results.

I took Better Than Ezra's CLOSER HDCD and copied the disc onto my hard drive with the WAV settings in iTunes. I also copied files using AIFF and made two discs from there. I burned the discs as Troy suggestion w/ Max. speed, but did NOT do anything else while I was burning the discs.

I will say that the recordings are cleaner than the ones I have made in the past without the clicks, pops, etc, but I still had issues with the following:

First, I have to turn the volume up at least 2-3 times louder on the CR-R's to match the regular Redbook CD.

Second, once I get the volume to match there are still some issues. I notice that the bass is response is quite poor on the CD-R's with for lack of other words...not as much punch and the sub isn't as 'boomin'. It's easy to tell right away that the CD-R doesn't hit as hard. The other issue is in the fidelity, which is also compromised heavily, although it is better than when I was using Apple Lossless.

I guess until I can ensure a nearly identical copy I will just use the real CD.

[Hyfi]

I may be wrong but was the original question why do PC burned CDs sound different than Purchased CDs? I may have got that wrong. If it was, it may just happen to be due to the fact that the process used for Purchased CDs does not include a $30 laptop or PC burner.

And if it's true that all digital copies sound the same, why do BMG CD club disks sound different than the same CD bought in a store that was not put out by BMG?

[Troy]

First, I have to turn the volume up at least 2-3 times louder on the CR-R's to match the regular Redbook CD.

How old is the CD player you are play these copies in?

Have you tried an A/B test with the original and copy in OTHER players you own?

Have you made reference CDs on other computers in the past that sounded correct on your reference system?

[PeruvianSkies]

How old is the CD player you are play these copies in?

Have you tried an A/B test with the original and copy in OTHER players you own?

Have you made reference CDs on other computers in the past that sounded correct on your reference system?

Troy,

Great questions and I realized that I left some stuff out of my last post about my results.

First, the player that I am using is only a year and a half old, it's the Parasound D3 universal player. I did however test out both discs that I made in comparison to the HDCD on my secondary system and the difference was less noticeable in terms of quality, but the volume was still an issue. I have NOT made CD's in the past on other computers, but today I am going to use a CD copy tower and make a duplicate of the HDCD again and see how those two compare. I'll let you know how that goes....

[Jim Clark]

Troy,

Great questions and I realized that I left some stuff out of my last post about my results.

First, the player that I am using is only a year and a half old, it's the Parasound D3 universal player. I did however test out both discs that I made in comparison to the HDCD on my secondary system and the difference was less noticeable in terms of quality, but the volume was still an issue. I have NOT made CD's in the past on other computers, but today I am going to use a CD copy tower and make a duplicate of the HDCD again and see how those two compare. I'll let you know how that goes....

Here's a weird question for you. Does the Parasound recognize the copy as an HDCD? Make sure 'cuz if it doesn't that would account for the volume difference. It can't be that simple but it would be cool to figure it out.

jc

[PeruvianSkies]

Here's a weird question for you. Does the Parasound recognize the copy as an HDCD? Make sure 'cuz if it doesn't that would account for the volume difference. It can't be that simple but it would be cool to figure it out.

jc

I do not have an indicator on my player that tells whether or not the disc is an HDCD, but from what I understand the D3 converts everything up to 24 bit.

My secondary system just has a basic Sony 5-disc changer and the volume difference is on that system too.

[PeruvianSkies]

I keep forgetting to mention important details. I also played all of the comparisons on my main system with analog and digital out and the results were virtually identical. It didn't seem to matter.

[Jim Clark]

Not really. If anything, it would sound louder. Not sure about current licensing requirements, but the original agreement required the playback of non-HDCD disks to be at a -6db volume, hence many companies opted to simply reduce the volume digitally via the input pin option on the HDCD chip, which results in a loss of 1 bit of resolution, instead of within the analog domain, a more costly solution. Many of us early tweakers had to go in and lift the pin and jumper it to a different voltage to get the full resolution back for non-HDCD playback. Stupid requirement.


I don't quite understand. If the agreement calls for non-HDCDs to be at -6db vs. HDCDs why would a non HDCD be louder? I guess the answer is in the next sentence but it isn't clicking. wouldn't that also depend on how he has things set up in his stereo and the balance of the equipment? I doubt Parasound took the cheapest way out, for example. I never really got into HDCD and only have it available on my Oppo. Couldn't possibly care less about it, truth be told. I just thought non compliant CDs were lower in volume.

I agree that software/settings are probably the issue. I still think using a non HDCD is probably a reasonable thing to do until he gets it all sorted out. One less variable to account for. I thought Macs were supposed to be easy to use?

jc

[Davey]

Here's a weird question for you. Does the Parasound recognize the copy as an HDCD? Make sure 'cuz if it doesn't that would account for the volume difference.
Yea, if not bit-perfect, for example if resampled to 48K or if the volume is changed, it won't be decoded as HDCD. Not sure about current licensing requirements, but the original agreement required the playback of non-HDCD disks to be at a -6db (50%) volume, hence many companies opted to simply reduce the volume digitally via the input pin option on the HDCD chip, which results in a loss of 1 bit of resolution (divide by 2), instead of within the analog domain with a relay or some other way to control gain, a more costly solution. Many of us early tweakers had to go in and lift the pin and jumper it to a different voltage to get the full resolution back for non-HDCD playback. Stupid requirement.

In any case, I think that PSkies needs to concentrate on getting the settings right for a bit perfect rip and burn, which he is obviously not getting now. Don't even need to bother listening until you can rip and burn a song with no differences. Most programs have comparison tools, or you can always just use the tools built into Windows or Mac for comparing files.


But come on, I mean are you telling me production CD's are burned at a slow rate for sound quality - I don't think so, not when economics are the main concern.
You probably know this, but production CDs are pressed, almost like vinyl records, so there is no burning speed except when they are making the master.

[Davey]

I don't quite understand. If the agreement calls for non-HDCDs to be at -6db vs. HDCDs why would a non HDCD be louder?
Oh Jim, don't ask such silly questions*, and where did I say it would be louder anyway :)


I still think using a non HDCD is probably a reasonable thing to do until he gets it all sorted out. One less variable to account for.
True, maybe, but HDCD can be a easy tool to check for bit-perfect copying if you have a HDCD player. They all should have a HDCD indicator, I think that's also a licensing requirement. Are you sure there is no indicator, PSkies? Other people use DTS recordings to check for bit-perfect transfers.









* Ok, yea, sometimes I forget to think before posting

[Jim Clark]

Oh Jim, don't ask such silly questions*, and where did I say it would be louder anyway :)


True, maybe, but HDCD can be a easy tool to check for bit-perfect copying if you have a HDCD player. They all should have a HDCD indicator, I think that's also a licensing requirement. Are you sure there is no indicator, PSkies? Other people use DTS recordings to check for bit-perfect transfers.
* Ok, yea, sometimes I forget to think before posting

Whew, now that that's all sorted out... : )

And yeah, it should be easy enough to check to see if the copies are HDCD, that's why I told him to check ya big goof. My (potentially) brilliant post, reduced to bits of so much digital flotsam : ) (caved in, using the stupid ass smilie things)

jc

[PeruvianSkies]

Should I use the default settings for the WAV files, or should I change the sample rate, sample size, and channels?

Can anyone answer this....? Is this a factor worth considering?

[Mike]

You probably know this, but production CDs are pressed, almost like vinyl records, so there is no burning speed except when they are making the master.

Errr as you guessed...no I didn't.

It's starting to look like this post will rival Bernds 'what's spinning'

Cheers
Mike

[BradH]

Should I use the default settings for the WAV files, or should I change the sample rate, sample size, and channels?

If you have the ability to change any of that from the original, don't. You can't get bit-perfect copies that way.

[PeruvianSkies]

Ok, I decided to try another Redbook CD, this time I made a copy on my laptop using iTunes w/ all of the settings that were recommended and such and I also made a copy using a CD copying tower, when I get home I will compare all 3 discs to see what happens. This time I eliminated the HDCD as a factor. I am using WAV for the import setting.

I shall post my results once I test it out. I will also try the comparison on separate machines in my main system as well as on my secondary system to see what type of results I get across the board. Shall be interesting!!!

[Slosh]

Should I use the default settings for WAV files, or should I change the sample rate, sample size, and channels?
If you have the ability to change any of that from the original, don't. You can't get bit-perfect copies that way.Yeah, and besides, when you burn it back to CD-R it will have to get resampled yet again to 44.1kHz/16-bit, otherwise it is no longer a redbook CD. All you'll get with the upconversion at best is larger .wav files, and this could actually degrade sound quality depending how good or bad the upconversion processing is.

So long as you have all of the effects turned off (volume leveling, eq, etc.) you'll get a bit-perfect clone.

[PeruvianSkies]

Yeah, and besides, when you burn it back to CD-R it will have to get resampled yet again to 44.1kHz/16-bit, otherwise it is no longer a redbook CD. All you'll get with the upconversion at best is larger .wav files, and this could actually degrade sound quality depending how good or bad the upconversion processing is.

So long as you have all of the effects turned off (volume leveling, eq, etc.) you'll get a bit-perfect clone.

Should I have the "sound check" box checked??

[PeruvianSkies]

Tonight I did a thorough comparison between these three discs:

David Crowder's SUNSET & SUSHI Redbook CD
CD-R burned w/ iTunes using WAV settings via Powerbook
CD-R using 7:1 tower CD/DVD burner 48X

All three were compared using the first 3 tracks on my main system w/ both digital and analogue outs tested.

The results:

The CD-R burned using a tower is about as identical as it gets. The volume was identical, the bass was similar, and I couldn't really detect much difference. In a blind test it would be hard to determine which is which.

The CD-R burned on my Laptop was again...vastly different with the volume being 3x softer and the bass was lacking as well as the overall fidelity. It didn't have any energy to it.

Unless I am still not using the correct settings, I am pretty convinced that it will be impossible to get an exact copy on my laptop like I can with an external device like the tower.

[Troy]

Unless I am still not using the correct settings, I am pretty convinced that it will be impossible to get an exact copy on my laptop like I can with an external device like the tower.

You must be using the incorrect settings cuz no one else that I know that uses iTunes has this problem.

[PeruvianSkies]

You must be using the incorrect settings cuz no one else that I know that uses iTunes has this problem.

Do you think it has to do with having the 'sound check' box checked??? Could it be decreasing the volume?

[Slosh]

Do you think it has to do with having the 'sound check' box checked??? Could it be decreasing the volume?Yes, that's your problem. Sound Check attempts to make all of your rips have the same average level; in other words, compresses dynamic range.

My daughter uses iTunes and rips all of her music in Apple Lossless and I can confirm all of her mix CDs she makes with iTunes are bit-perfect to the original. She's using the most up to date version of iTunes, FWIW. Her settings:
- Disc Format: Audio CD
- Preferred Speed: 16x
- Gap Between Songs: None
- Use Sound Check: unchecked
- Include CD Text: checked
- MP3 CD: unchecked
- Data CD: unchecked

edit: I forgot to add if you ripped with the Sound Check box checked you'll have to re-rip again, as your files are not bit-perfect. Also I disagree with Troy in that there is no reason not to opt for Apple Lossless over AIFF or .wav. You'll save about 40% HDD space with no loss of fidelity, plus the meta tag data will be in the m4A files themselves, as opposed to the xml library that potentially can become corrupted.

You're not related to TLADINY are you? :p

[bobsticks]

You're not related to TLADINY are you? :p

ouch.

[PeruvianSkies]

ouch.

I'd like to think of myself as fairly computer savvy and I am very familiar with Macs, but the problem with iTunes and such is that they don't really explain much to you or really tell you the best ways to operate it. If it did...I wouldn't have to ask so many questions.

[Slosh]

Hey PSkies, I'm assuming you know this but in case not, that was just a little joke. Sorry if you took it otherwise.

[Jim Clark]

Hey PSkies, I'm assuming you know this but in case not, that was just a little joke. Sorry if you took it otherwise.

Odd thing is, I was actually starting to wonder the same thing although I"m not pointing any fingers : )

Did a little search on Blade Runner and the first thread I find has someone pointing out to Peruvian Skies that Lexmark/TLADINY's favorite movie was Blade Runner. Weird, huh?

I'm just saying...that I'm not saying nutin'.

jc