No Disc Posted March 18, 2004 Author Share Posted March 18, 2004 Max and others I really feel no need to go any further on this. Ray provided the link to probably the best description I can imagine about what goes into burning and reading an audio CD and the problems associated with reading the information in. For those who care to understand the issue, click on the link Ray has provided and read through the white paper. I have no doubt in my mind that two CDs can have the same audio information placed on them but sound different. Why it happens is clearly described in that article and in fact is referenced in that article as "Jitter" or "Pit Jitter". Having a nice undistorted waveform is what the goal is. Those here that are electronic savvy and can read a oscilloscope might note the waveform pictures showing much better waveform definition between Audio Master Quality Recording and Conventional Recording. Using Black CD-Rs was not in the scope of the white paper. I have my own ideas about why Black helps reduce forms of Jitter. Plextor is even marketing a CD burner now that has a BLACK CD tray and in the product description claims this is to help reduce Jitter. - tb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Heck the way it looks to me it would just be easier to do the computer music server approach then all this ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipsch RF7 Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 ---------------- On 3/18/2004 10:55:12 AM NOSValves wrote: Heck the way it looks to me it would just be easier to do the computer music server approach then all this ! ---------------- Thats not a bad idea, I wonder how raw .wav files will sound through a nice soundcard going into my preamp, get a huge 120gb hard disk and rip all your CD's to .wav format and your set, no burning or anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Disc Posted March 18, 2004 Author Share Posted March 18, 2004 According to Gordon Rankin of Wavelength, one of his best transports is his Macintosh laptop connected to his stereo via his USB DAC. Trouble is, USB is limited to 16- bit audio. Connecting your computer to your stereo DAC via a digital cable has it's own problems with Jitter. Ask Gordon. When the price of USB DACs come down, way down, I might go this direction. However, I may wait for Firewire DACs that won't have the 16-bit limitation. -tb ---------------- On 3/18/2004 10:55:12 AM NOSValves wrote: Heck the way it looks to me it would just be easier to do the computer music server approach then all this ! ---------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 now MaxG is believable, thanks for that input Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 er...thanks Colin....but why am I believable - I never have any clue what I am doing ???? About all I can manage is to follow simple instructions. I mean, I tried to follow the link that Ray posted - went all the way back to page 1 (which helpfully has a 0 in the address line and not a 1) and started to read through. when they brought up the fifth error correction thingamajig I gave up. Still no clue why this CD thing works - but they do say that if you go black you dont go back.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipsch RF7 Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 MaxG, Im hoping to reproduce the same results as in the article, I am going to use the same external CD RW and set a heavy object on top of it to reduce the vibrations and use the same programs for the extraction and burning process, I will defrag my hard drive and disconnect all USB devices and shut off all unneccessary processes and burn at 1x on Black CD-R media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 GFH, According to the theory you should produce more definitive results than I did - will be interesting so see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipsch RF7 Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 ---------------- On 3/19/2004 12:49:19 PM maxg wrote: GFH, According to the theory you should produce more definitive results than I did - will be interesting so see. ---------------- You and me both Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artto Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 I have a number of problems with Mr. Kohs research. First let me state (as I have before, and this is not to be an arrogant SOB), that yours truly probably has as much or even broader range of experience with CD as anyone in the U.S. as I was literally guaranteed first delivery of the first player & CDs from Sony. In fact, I even had one in my system (on loan from Sony) months before the actual product release here in the states. The reason being, my system/room was going to be published in Stereo Review Magazine & I got the bright idea to call Sony & try to obtain a player in advance of their release (at a discount of course, lol) and they would in return receive some free publicity from the publication & its use in a very sophisticated home system. They didnt fall for it. But they did guarantee me first off the initial shipment, and allowed me to use one of two touring units for awhile and for the photo session. That being said, I have also made literally thousands of CD-R copies, on several different computers, CD-RW drives, different versions of software, countless brands of media. The majority of these recordings are from bands Ive played in, or are from recordings I produce for local chorale & orchestra. The band stuff was usually recorded on large multi-track analog tape or digitally on ADAT. The orchestral stuff I formerly used a Nakamichi Dragon, but in recent years switched to DAT. It should also be noted that the chorale/orchestral recordings I make are usually done live-in-concert and are true stereo recordings. The first CDs were absolutely atrocious. Believe me when I say I was probably more pissed off about digital & CD than any of you have ever been. I was there at the very beginning. And my letters to Sony, CBS & Phillips pissed off many a producer (so much so, a few actually wrote back to me, not to mention what Mark Finer, then VP of SonyCBS, personally told me about how ballistic producer Steven Epstein was after reading my letter). And then to realize that after all those years of waiting for the promise, I had already been listening to better for at least a decade! I wont go into the whole story about the transition CD made in this discussion. But I can attest that the first time one of my bands made their first CD, I was kind of amazed & puzzled. I had the 24 track ADAT master & the 2 track DAT master at my place. I could swear the CDs (pressed, not burned) sounded better than the master tapes! Turns out that they actually do sound better. It had something to do with being converted to a .WAV file. Now, depending on the software & hardware used, and the techniques used for transfer from one media to another as well as the compatibility of the media with the hardware/software, you can achieve all kinds of results. About the only thing I can agree about with Mr. Koh has to do with the error correction process. Different hardware & software use various error correction methods & algorithms. They will produce different results. And it seems that when one or another error correction reaches or exceeds its limits, it can affect the sound quality. Mr. Koh obviously has a great deal of misunderstanding of how computers work. He states that the computer does not care when the data is read or written, just what data is read or written. Such a foolish statement couldnt be farther from the truth. If that were indeed the case, the damn things wouldnt even work at all! Mr. Koh goes on to state use a good quality CD-RW drive burning it at the slowest speed it can. This is also pure folly. Computers differ not only in processor speed, but also in thru-put speed. Some drives run better at higher speeds than other. For instance, my newer Dell Workstation burns CDR better at 4x & even 8x speed than my HP Pavillion which likes to see 2x. Software is also often optimized to perform better at certain speeds. How many discs you produce in sequence can also affect the error rate & number of defects. Some CD-RW drives time better at faster transfer rates than others. He also says using a software that doesnt compress or process the music. Get over it. No matter what you do, analog or digital, its processed in some form or another. Further on Mr. Koh states What troubled me most at this stage, was that while they sounded different there was no one disc that stood out from the rest. And then in the same paragraph say But a lot of these (blanks) had some quality that stood out. Now if thats not inconsistent, I dont know what is! I really have to question Mr. Kohs personal view of logic. Even a Philosophy 101 student can rip that argument apart! Further on he states Black Cds are supposed to have better reflectance than gold or standard CDs when read. Some more hogwash. Apparently Mr. Koh sees the world differently than the rest of us. Black, by its very nature absorbs all (ok, nearly all) light that strikes it. It doesnt make for a very good reflective surface, espcially when its behind (in back of) the reflective recording surface. I think you get the point. This is just some more personal uninformed fantasyland theory stuff from some another J****** who doesnt know what hes talking about and doesnt even have the reasoning abilities to realize when hes written something thats inconsistent with what he already said. And just to rub the salt in a little further, Id like to take the opportunity to point out the room Arnie Nudell is in standing there holding a black CDR. YIKES! Come on Arnie & Gary (Koh). Get with the program. All that wonderful equipment, all of your resources, & all those CDR tests, & you dont even have a decent listening room to make accurate & meaningful subjective or objective tests in! Shame on you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipsch RF7 Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 We will see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Disc Posted March 22, 2004 Author Share Posted March 22, 2004 In response to Arttos post.... If you read the article carefully, he is referring to playstaion CDs and what the theroy behind those are, he is not making any of his own claims with that statement. He said the Black CDs are supposed to have higher reflectance, he did not say that the color Black has higher reflectance. He did not go into detail about why. His statement about computers caring about what data is read or written as apposed to what is read or written might be a little ambiguous, but the principle is essentially correct. Computers when reading a DATA CD will read, re-read and re-read again the data until it can confirm it's integrity. It does not care how many times it has to do that until the data passes the CRC check algorithm. Timing is not an issue, only the end result, the data is read intact. His statement about using a sofware that does not process or compress the data is sound advice. Again his statement is ambiguous, but correct. I believe he meant reading the Audio CD as though it was a DATA CD. Some Audio copying software and "RIPPING" software will compress the music into a compressed "lossy" format, such as mp3. Uncompressed WAV or AIFF format are lossless formats. If the user treats the Audio CD as if it were a DATA CD, making a exact image of the Audio CD, this should avoid the pitfalls of compressing the music into a "lossy" format. It's true, not all CD burners are alike and some will burn an Audio CD faster, with less pit jitter errors, than others. However, burning at a slower speed never creates more pit errors, it only takes more time. Without jitter testing equipment, which probably none of his readers will have, how will these people deterimine the "SAFE" speed to burn the audio CDs with minimal pit jitter? I feel a blanket statement is probably best here and burn at the slowest speed is a safe answer. Will 1x or 2x, or even 8x be any different? You will need special equipment to determine that. Burning at 2x will not hurt you, that is safe to say. I don't have a problem with his statement. None of the discs were any better than any other, but most were better that the original? What's wrong with that? tb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 I disagree that burning at the slowest speed is automatically the best. Drives are not built with the expectation that the user will be burning at 1x anymore. They are engineered with faster burning rates in mind. Same for the blank CDR media. They are optimized for faster burns. There are too many variables involved with recorder, media, and programs to just make a blanket statement that slower is better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Disc Posted March 22, 2004 Author Share Posted March 22, 2004 Paul, Buring at the slowest speed is the safest method to get a correct burn. There may or may not be a difference between 1x, 2x, or 4x on any particular burner. It's no big deal really .. I just burn my CD-Rs at 2x when I'm busy doing other things. -tb ---------------- On 3/22/2004 12:00:26 PM paulparrot wrote: I disagree that burning at the slowest speed is automatically the best. Drives are not built with the expectation that the user will be burning at 1x anymore. They are engineered with faster burning rates in mind. Same for the blank CDR media. They are optimized for faster burns. There are too many variables involved with recorder, media, and programs to just make a blanket statement that slower is better. ---------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 ---------------- On 3/18/2004 10:58:07 AM Georg F. Handel wrote: ---------------- On 3/18/2004 10:55:12 AM NOSValves wrote: Heck the way it looks to me it would just be easier to do the computer music server approach then all this ! ---------------- Thats not a bad idea, I wonder how raw .wav files will sound through a nice soundcard going into my preamp, get a huge 120gb hard disk and rip all your CD's to .wav format and your set, no burning or anything. ---------------- It sounds great I have done it with a M-Audio Audiophile 2496 card. I also use a Mangeta ADE24 buffer stage with this setup. Even quality MP3'S sound exceptable ! In fact pourly recorded CD's from early years I think sound better as MP3's it seems to get rid of the hash ! Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipsch RF7 Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 ---------------- It sounds great I have done it with a M-Audio Audiophile 2496 card. I also use a Mangeta ADE24 buffer stage with this setup. Even quality MP3'S sound exceptable ! In fact pourly recorded CD's from early years I think sound better as MP3's it seems to get rid of the hash ! Craig ---------------- I have an M-Audio Revolution 24/192 sound card as well! Ill have to try that, im getting a mini stereo DIN to rca Left and right cable to plug into the preamp. Im also bought the hardware and discs to try that Black CD-R experiment as well, should have all the hardware in place by this weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 2496 doesn't use them wimpy mini din connectors RCA's all the way ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipsch RF7 Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 ---------------- On 3/22/2004 12:27:33 PM NOSValves wrote: 2496 doesn't use them wimpy mini din connectors RCA's all the way ! ---------------- Yeah, you actually have the professional version of the card which is all RCA connectors on the back I am forced to use the Mini Din output, which should be fine. Here is yours: Here is mine: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Disc Posted March 22, 2004 Author Share Posted March 22, 2004 These Articles back up what I said.... http://www.cdrlabs.com/articles/index.php?articleid=16 The below link shows Actual Test Data. Note 4x, the lowest speed tested, had the lowest Jitter. http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Articles/Specific.asp?ArticleHeadline=Jitter+Tests&index=10 - tb ---------------- On 3/22/2004 12:00:26 PM paulparrot wrote: I disagree that burning at the slowest speed is automatically the best. Drives are not built with the expectation that the user will be burning at 1x anymore. They are engineered with faster burning rates in mind. Same for the blank CDR media. They are optimized for faster burns. There are too many variables involved with recorder, media, and programs to just make a blanket statement that slower is better. ---------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1101 Posted March 22, 2004 Share Posted March 22, 2004 I am very interested in what people on this forum find out trying to replicate this test. Of particular importance was the statement in the article which implied that you can take a store boughten CD that doesn't sound that great, and re-record it, to improve it. Did I read that correctly? That would imply that the correct data is on the original but doesn't sound good. Re-recording "properly" makes it sound better. How can you improve on your source, if your source is poor and you simply copy it? Someone explain that one. By the way I experimented myself to see how good my Audigy sound card was and A/B'd wav files copied off a CD onto my hard drive, and having the CD itself in my rack system player. No comparison. The CD player blew away the PC playing the .wav file. By a long shot. So, Audigy 2 ZX A/D converter is not a match for my Sony or JVC players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.