[Mag]

Last night I was listening to Dave Matthews - Live in Chicago. I particularly like the song All along the Watchtower, so much so that I played it at least 5 times.

After about 2 listens I decided to copy the original to cd-r. Yes there it was, a definite improvement in sound quality like a veil had been lifted from the music.

The most significant improvement I recall came from a Sasha-Involver cd. It skipped right out of the jewel case, pretty cheap quality cd. Copied it to cd-r, and oh what a difference in the sound, for the better.

This is also true for hybrid sacd. The cd version I believe is not redbook standard. Therefore I hear a improvement in those as well when copied to cd-r.


Has anybody else copied to cd-r with improved sound results?

[Anonamemouse]

yup.
try getting a few mobile fidelity cd-r's. burn them as slow as possible and be amazed even more.

[Mag]

I'll give those a try. I use Disc-Clone at medium speed. There is a slow speed but I don't have the patience to wait anymore.
I use to burn at 1x, newer cd-roms don't go that slow. I can't tell any difference between 12x, 16x or 24x so I usually go with 24x.

[vegasdave]

What is the technical reason for this phenomenon?

[Mag]

I guess the reason would be that most cd albums are not manufactered to redbook standards. The ones that are, you will hear little or no difference when copied to cd-r.

[jaxwired]

Uhmm, but that makes no sense.  You are making a COPY.  Either it is a bit perfect copy of the original or it is not. IF it is a bit perfect copy, then it would have to sound identical to the original.  IF it is not a bit perfect copy, then it would have to sound worse than the original since the data is now at least partially incorrect.

Tell me where I've gone wrong with my logic....

[Mag]

Here's a link to an interesting artical on what manufacturers are doing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_Control

You can also do a search on Redbook cd. Where manufacturers don't conform to the redbook standards.

I don't know the technical reasons but I would guess my standalone burner corrects the incorrect cd to redbook cd.

[VOLKS]

Here's a link to an interesting artical on what manufacturers are doing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_Control

You can also do a search on Redbook cd. Where manufacturers don't conform to the redbook standards.

I don't know the technical reasons but I would guess my standalone burner corrects the incorrect cd to redbook cd.

If it does correct the incorrect cd then that would be amazing.....however i cannot for the life of me see how it would do this if some kind of error is there in the first place................why or how would it correct it?(assuming something was wrong in the first place).............god now i am confused lol

[Mag]

In the article a false ToC is written on these manufacturers cd. Only the proper software can read it. My Disc Clone II is a cd-r/rw so it bypasses this ToC reading the disc properly with the correct error correction.

It however is not full proof as I mention is other post how I usually get glitches in the last 2 tracks of cp cds.

There is one cd I recall that I've come across that even with my burner the sound quality of the copy is in inferior to the original, but that is very rare.

This also explains why some cds don't play properly in the BCD-1 as they don't conform to redbook which the player is designed to play. And even if they do play you may not be hearing the true potential of redbook cd.

[vegasdave]

Don't conform to redbook, huh. That's a pretty sorry state of affairs!

[Napalm]

What is the technical reason for this phenomenon?

One is the copy protection scam already mentioned. I just don't buy those POS, they're defective by design.

The other is when your original CD is borderline defective (i.e. pressing defect, light scratches etc.). The audio data on a CD does not have ECC (error correcting code) appended to each sector. The CD unit will report if it encountered an error (the C1/C2 codes) but it won't be able to fix it in real time at 1x disc speed (as there's no ECC). So a regular CD player will just skip that sector or whatever.

The way to "fix" those errors (if they are borderline) would be to repeatedly read the bad sector(s) until you get a good read of them (no C1/C2 error reported). If it's not possible (bad damage), then the software would read those sectors hundreds of time and calculate by statistical means which would be the most plausible bits there. This is accomplished on a computer with programs like EAC (Exact Audio Copy).

I once spent a full afternoon with Massive Attack's "Collected", the last track on the first CD was borderline defective (pressing issue, no scratches or physical damage). The original CD was skipping several times on that track. After EAC spinned that CD for hours, reading that track hundreds of time, it produced a WAV file that had absolutely no "clicks" or "skips" in it.

Nap. 

[Mag]

Copy Control logically extends to dvd and Blu-ray,sacd. However these mediums were made with copy protection in place right from the start. So it's more effective and the only way around it is through the analog hole.

Blu-ray has the potential for true DTS-HD for music. It's not being used because the consumer would have access to sound quality on par with the master copy. There's no way if I owned the master copy that I would want anyone else to have their own master copy. But that's just me.

[Mag]

I once spent a full afternoon with Massive Attack's "Collected", the last track on the first CD was borderline defective (pressing issue, no scratches or physical damage). The original CD was skipping several times on that track. After EAC spinned that CD for hours, reading that track hundreds of time, it produced a WAV file that had absolutely no "clicks" or "skips" in it.

I learned that method, not to the same extent, back in the '90s. I had a cd that skipped so bad on my favorite track it was unlistenable. I had the new Panasonic car player with halogram pickup. It played that track without a problem. That's where I got the idea that I could correct the flaws by copying to computer and burning a new copy, and it worked!

[Napalm]

[...]
Blu-ray has the potential for true DTS-HD for music. It's not being used because the consumer would have access to sound quality on par with the master copy. There's no way if I owned the master copy that I would want anyone else to have their own master copy. But that's just me.

I don't think that they are concerned so much about piracy as they are into locking you in their format without being able to transfer it to a different medium. So later when they declare the format obsolete and come with something "new and improved", you'll have to buy again all your collection in the new format.

Remember that the "pirates" are not that much interested in "master copy" level of quality. They're pretty happy with 128k MP3 files and heavily compressed 320x200 size video, played on their netbooks or iPods.

Those interested in quality are the people that are actually buying the original CDs, SACDs and Blu-Ray discs. That's the paying market and that's what they want to lock in.

Nap. 

[Mag]

Out of curiosity I went through my cd collection, the ones that I still have the jewel cases. Only 23 of a 140 cds have the redbook logo on them.

I found one with the extra Sony rootkit. They say they produced 52 albums. However I have two that I know of that aren't on that list. These cds will wreck your computer if you don't know about them. I had two cd-rom completely ruined and a nasty virus on the computer I couldn't get rid of, which probably came from one of these cds, even with very good anti-virus software.

[rob80b]

All this is very interesting, all my CDs are commercially bought but a year I started making copies for use in the car, the first batch I whipped off at 24 or higher played fine until I hit a few rough spots on the road and thought the player was acting up.
I then recopied them at much slower speeds and now never have a problem, where it got interesting is that I copied a few of the copies that caused problems at a slower speed and those never cause a problem.
I believe what Mag is experiencing is the fact that most original CDs are high speed mass produced so the laser burn is fairly shallow, by copying the CD we are actual making a better copy, the bits are the same but the laser has an easier time at reading the data on the copied disc for what ever reason as bits are supposed to be bits, right? Therefore less errors (a form of jitter) are corrected giving you better-perceived sound. 
Which opens up another can of worms, transports.

Robert

[rob80b]

Uhmm, but that makes no sense.  You are making a COPY.  Either it is a bit perfect copy of the original or it is not. IF it is a bit perfect copy, then it would have to sound identical to the original.  IF it is not a bit perfect copy, then it would have to sound worse than the original since the data is now at least partially incorrect.

Tell me where I've gone wrong with my logic....

Hi jaxwired,

My above comment might be part of the answer to the riddle, although it's only an intuitive guess.

Robert

[srb]

The sound quality from a CD player depends on many factors, but one of them is how well they perform on-the-fly realtime error correction, as opposed to non-realtime error correction used when ripping a CD to a hard drive or making a CD-R copy from it.
 
CDs have an aluminum substrate layer with physically stamped pits representing the digital information.  CD-Rs have a dye mask layer on top of an aluminum layer, and the laser burning process records the digital information as either transparent or opaque areas in the mask.
 
Although the dye mask layer in CD-Rs will be less stable over time compared to the stamped layer of physical pits in a CD, they are actually easier for the laser to read, and require less realtime error correction.
 
Steve

[rob80b]

The sound quality from a CD player depends on many factors, but one of them is how well they perform on-the-fly realtime error correction, as opposed to non-realtime error correction used when ripping a CD to a hard drive or making a CD-R copy from it.
 
CDs have an aluminum substrate layer with physically stamped pits representing the digital information.  CD-Rs have a dye mask layer on top of an aluminum layer, and the laser burning process records the digital information as either transparent or opaque areas in the mask.
 
Although the dye mask layer in CD-Rs will be less stable over time compared to the stamped layer of physical pits in a CD, they are actually easier for the laser to read, and require less realtime error correction.
 
Steve

Thanks Steve, any explanation (although I'll try to look it up)why a slower burned CD is more stable than a faster burn, although they have the same information?

Robert

[srb]

Thanks Steve, any explanation (although I'll try to look it up)why a slower burned CD is more stable than a faster burn, although they have the same information?

I think it's simply that a slower burn gives the laser a bit more time to convert the dye to full transparency for that bit, as opposed to almost transparent but slightly translucent as well as making the chemical conversion process more 'complete'.
 
It is also dependent on the dye formulation used.  The cheaper dyes are more sensitive to degradation from both artificial light and sunlight, if left exposed.
 
Steve