Computer made CDs sound bad

[dgb]

I find it interesting that on a board where people will pay high prices for gold plated jacks, specially shielded power lines, pure silver interconnects, special high end capaciters in their CD players, that no one belives that CD-R made from distinctly different materials and to distinctly different quality controls, can make no difference?

When you guys did use tape, did you buy Radio Shack Type I tapes or TDK MA metal tapes? Are you condemming the tape medium due to experiences with a $100 Radio Shack 2-head deck playing some crappy mass produced cassette? Would you think me nuts if my entire opinon of turntables came from playing a beat up copy of Seasame Street live on a Califione mono table?

CD-Rs are a terrific invention, I love them and I use them all the time. But why would the quality of the medium not suffer using cheap media and cheap hardware at the equivlent of Super-duper-hyper high-speed dubbing?

[dragonfyr]

what a site!

[Erukian]

Here is how I rip, store and burn my music.

--Rip It--

I use EAC, Secure mode.

--Store It--

Download FLAC Frontend from flac.sf.net Use that to encode the wav files

--Tag It--

Download MP3Tag, I then use Freedb in foobar or mp3tag to download all the tags and tag the files the way I want to.

--Burn It--

down burrrn from burrrn.net - it's a new burner designed to handle any audio format and it's super tiny, doesn't add any junk into the cd either. It also supports cue sheets. Which is very cool if you want to store your audio in a bit-perfect way with the stuff like the same gaps between tracks and all that stuff.

-Joe

[dragonfyr]

----------------

On 8/2/2005 8:29:44 AM dgb wrote:

Sorry, you're just wrong on this. There is a definite and established difference between matierials used in CD-Rs. Some burn incomplete, some "melt" rather than burn, giving inaccurate copies, some are more susceptable to heat than others. I have had many, many disks go bad over the years that I have recieved in trades. Most were cheap store brand disks with light green dye. I haven't had a single Kodak Gold disk go bad in nearly 10 years though.

If you cannot hear the difference between an original CD and a CD burt on crap media at 48x you might want to get some Bose.

----------------

With all due respect, the paragraph above is misleading, at best.

The "quality" of CD-Rs is an iffy issue. Deterioration of CDs is a real problem... but curiously enough - I have never encountered it. Every CD I have burned ages ago... still works, and I use very cheap media (10c/disk). But while longevity may suffer, in theory, and in the long run, there is NO DIFFERENCE between cheap and expensive media, or between the original and the copy for that matter. EAC and Nero copy information so that it remains BIT PERFECT. The only way for the audio quality to decrease is to compress the music before burning it.

----------------

I love it when folks berate others with technical details like "crap media", and some "melt rather then burn" (I hate to confuse you with facts)

Yes there are established standards, and they are easily available! So instead of whining about 'cheap media' that varies with regards to the aging and archival properties, do your research and choose the one that suits your needs. Duh!

Here is but one site of MANY that provides lots of detail regarding the various dyes. They explain all about the various dyes and their longevity.

http://cdmediaworld.com/hardware/cdrom/cd_dye.shtml

They also provide info on the lastest software tools and releases

http://cdmediaworld.com/hardware/cdrom/cd.shtml

Or another excellent site is

http://www.american-digital.com/prodsite/category.asp?c=18

But if you are concerned about quality and longevity, do more then complain about "crap media" Especially when ALL of the choices at Circuit City and Best Buy and Fry's, and all the other retail vendors offer disks made of the SAME DYE! None are labelled, and none of the various quality dyes are offered at other then wholesale duplicators! So complaining about quality and cheap media at these retail outlets is a MOOT point! You can simply buy the expensive branded 'cheap' media, or you can by the sourced generic 'cheap' media! And TRY to find PhthaloCyanine or Azo disks in any of the retail outlets!!!!!! You get them from the wholesale suppliers who supply duplicators!

Or you can assume some responsibility for purchasing quality media if your archival needs are for 100 years! But the point is correct- bit copies are exact copies of the original. Period. They are all burned the same way!

So let's be smarter more informed consumers! And assume a bit of responsibility for making good choices! And stop with the emotional diatribes and unfounded claims without substantiation. Especially when the info is so easily available. Buy what suits your needs. Duh!

And dude, you are paying WAY too much! But I will be glad to source them to you for your quoted prices!

Wow! the lime green and sky blue seem to crawl around on their own!

[dragonfyr]

again - I LOVE how this site will create the record, but does not save the data!

[jbsl]

Got this info from the Marantz website on the pro products, pro CD recorders FAQ

http://www.d-mpro.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=1516&Tab=FAQ

"Another aspect of CD-R technology is the type of dye used for the reflectivity surface of the disc. Typically there are three different types of dye: Azo (Blue), Cyanine (Green/Blue), and Phthalocyanine (Gold). Customers have reported that discs using the Azo (Blue) type dye, are not reliable with the professional branded recorders. The Cyanine (Green/Blue) discs tend to perform the best, with the Phthalocyanine (Gold) discs being an intermediary choice between Azo and Cyanine.

As far as what brands to purchase for your professional CD recorder, we recommend purchasing brands like: TDK, Fuji, Apogee Gold, HHB Gold, Sony, Kodak Gold, Klone, Philips, and Ricoh. In the past customers have reported problems with brands like Maxell, Memorex, Imation, Comp USA, Office Depot, Verbatim, and generic type (unbranded) CD-Rs.

This info is for pro recorders so it may not be the same for home CD/rw players in a computer.

Xman

[dgb]

I;m not sure what you are going all ballistic about Dragon. I don't think I've contradicted anything you are saying. However, information about CD-Rs was not readily available when they first came out 10 years ago, and I lost a lot of good music becuase of the junk CDs I got in trades. For my own material I have tried to find a good balance of reliablity (usually learned the hard way) and price. I will not buy disks from companies that have failed me in the past: Imation, Office Depot, Office Max, Memorex are ones that come to mind immediately. I also believe the quality controls on the disks are also critical. How well the outer shell is made, how good the glue is, how much air gets in between the shell, how smooth the edges are, how well it resists scratching, etc

The CDmedia world site reiterates EXACTLY what I have said. There is a difference in the longevity and error rate in different types of CDs and writing at high speed increases the above problems and results in audio quality isssues.

[dragonfyr]

The point is that what is fact and EASILY obtained began as a debate and was pursued in that manner with hystrionics about 'cheap media' (one of them fancy technical terms I guess)!

And the issue of various dyes are not solved by which brand you buy in the retail outlet! As they are not offering various dyes in either CD or DVD media!

And you may find it surprising that some of us have spoken with the buyers at Circuit City and Best Buy and even Comp USA. And in each case the buyers were unaware of the different dyes and have yet to change this situation!

So quote your brands and models all you like, to get the better dyes, you need to look to the wholesale suppliers. And there are many quality sources. And while some are better known to the retail market, Mitsui and Taiyo Yuden are much larger manufacturers of media and source more duplicators then most of the name brands you may be more familiar with.

And the information regarding life cycle has been available for easily 15+ years, as we dealt with it for secure data archival purposes long ago!

And also take the 'brand' compatibility endorsements with a grain of salt. Generally, brand suggestions are due to marketing partnerships, paid endorsements, or having paid to have a product tested and thus 'supported'. But as with any 'supported' situation, 'supported' and 'unsupported' do not mean that other materials or methods will not work! 'Supported' simply means that they have been tested and that the company will certify that they will work in all cases. 'Unsupported' items have simply not been tested.

The major quality brands should work in all quality recorders, unless they use a proprietary spindle or other format issue.

[dbflash]

I have a question.

I have heard that the best sounding copied CDs are made using Apple instead of Windows. Something about the way Apple compresses the music during the copying process.

My friends have both platforms, but always use their Apple when burning CDs.

Has anyone else experienced this? I am hoping to finally buy a PC later this year for the house. I mainly am buying one to burn music. I hate driving around with store bought CDs in the car. Not only am I worried that they will get scratched but stolen.

I am looking at an EMac.

Thanks,

Danny

[meuge]

----------------

On 8/2/2005 1:22:59 PM dbflash wrote:

I have a question.

I have heard that the best sounding copied CD’s are made using Apple instead of Windows. Something about the way Apple compresses the music during the copying process.

My friends have both platforms, but always use their Apple when burning CD’s.

Has anyone else experienced this? I am hoping to finally buy a PC later this year for the house. I mainly am buying one to burn music. I hate driving around with store bought CD’s in the car. Not only am I worried that they will get scratched but stolen.

I am looking at an EMac.

Thanks,

Danny

----------------

What you heard is incorrect. Real copies are bit-perfect, regardless of the platform used to make them. There are many reasons to get a Mac, such as style, security, convenience, anti-Microsoft sentiment... but higher quality of copied CDs is not one of those reasons.

[meuge]

----------------

On 8/2/2005 9:33:20 AM dgb wrote:

How about you copy the CD onto one cheap CD at 48x and one good CD at real time, then copy samples of both to a good CD at 1x. If I win you buy me a ten pack of Maxell XLIIS tapes, if I win I'll buy you a 50 pack of Office Depot crapola CD-Rs.

I'm up for the challenge, although make sure you use some demanding source material.

Of course copying successfully at 48x is another problem.

----------------

Deal. I do not know how much the Maxell tapes are, but I am sure we can work out an even bet.

My suggestion for good benchmark CDs - Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here" and a superb recording of Tchaikovsky's 4th?

Give me the name or product number of a specific type of CD you want me to use for "good quality" burns.

FIY - I will be using a top-of-the-line DVD/CD Burner NEC 3540A 16/8/48/48. I do not remember what my "cheap" CDs are, but I'll let you know. They came out to about 12c/disk I believe.

[Mallette]

This is always difficult because media quality is SO critical in analog ANYTHING. But the fact is that CD/DVD blanks either burn or they don't. It's that simple. The only thing media quality relates to is archival quality and maximum burn speed.

Do you ask what the platters of your HDD are made of? They either work, or they don't.

As to storage, I keep ALL my CD's on HDD for easy access and because there is absolutely no way I could afford a stand-alone player that would compete with the DACS in my Card Deluxe or ESI Pro boards or the data transfer stability of a 10,000 RPM SATA HDD. Actually, even an Audigy or 100.00 Revelation card will beat most any standalone player short of a mortgage.

Again, a subject with LOTs of strong opinions with the above simply being those drawn from my own experience in location recording and audio engineering.

Dave

[Zealot125]

----------------

On 8/2/2005 1:31:56 PM meuge wrote:

What you heard is incorrect. Real copies are bit-perfect, regardless of the platform used to make them. There are many reasons to get a Mac, such as style, security, convenience, anti-Microsoft sentiment... but higher quality of copied CDs is not one of those reasons.

----------------

Not so sure about security. In the tests I have run, the Mac's were a hundred times easier to compromise than their windows counterparts. Although if security is an issue the use Linux or UNIX. If you dont want ANYONE to EVER compromise your computer, then use OpenBSD (only 1 documented compromise EVER). The only good thing about Macs is that noone wants to waste thier time writing virii and adware for them. That was a long time ago though. I dont know anything about their new OS versions. If you want performance however, Mac is not for you. Their R+D just cant keep up with the big companies. Their dual processore "dream computers" are a bad joke.

[dragonfyr]

----------------

On 8/2/2005 1:22:59 PM dbflash wrote:

I have a question.

I have heard that the best sounding copied CDs are made using Apple instead of Windows. Something about the way Apple compresses the music during the copying process.

My friends have both platforms, but always use their Apple when burning CDs.

Has anyone else experienced this? I am hoping to finally buy a PC later this year for the house. I mainly am buying one to burn music. I hate driving around with store bought CDs in the car. Not only am I worried that they will get scratched but stolen.

I am looking at an EMac.

Thanks,

Danny

----------------

As Meuge stated, there should be no difference between a PC and an Apple in the actual burning of the CD/DVD. In fact, Apple uses Pioneer drives as their standard DVD/CD superdrive.

I too share your concern and routinely carry only copies of CDs in my vehicle, for travel, and for all of the various none home system related issues. In fact, as I have alot of unique issues not commercially available, I routinely archive the original and use the copy in my home system.

But, regarding the Mac, Apple does have some native software and editing packages that are superior for editing and 'composing' material you may want to record. And this should be a major consideration.

There are many OTHER reasons to go with the Mac!!!! Including the ability to load and run Windows with VirtualPC, its Windows file compatibility, and its ability to natively communicate with the various '*NIX' environments (as all of the UNIX variants are compatible) with OSXs FreeBSD UNIX based system. And the Mac is uniquely qualified to interact with both domains while bringing alot of unique abilites of its own to the party! Its finally time to go back to the Mac as a one size fits all platform.

(By the way, as the SCO 'the mouse that roared' suit begins to fade away...don't let the various varieties of UNIX (OSX, Linux and its varieties, AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, BSD and all its varieties, IRIX, etc. confuse you! Each company had to come up with their ouwn trademark and brand name, as UNIX is a registered trademark. So they were each a "UNIX-like" product. With the trademark issues soon to be a past issue. I would look to the legacy AT&T source code being open sourced. And to see UNIX finally become the proper umbrella label it deserves to be.)

[dragonfyr]

----------------

On 8/2/2005 2:05:12 PM Zealot125 wrote:

----------------

On 8/2/2005 1:31:56 PM meuge wrote:

What you heard is incorrect. Real copies are bit-perfect, regardless of the platform used to make them. There are many reasons to get a Mac, such as style, security, convenience, anti-Microsoft sentiment... but higher quality of copied CDs is not one of those reasons.

----------------

Not so sure about security. In the tests I have run, the Mac's were a hundred times easier to compromise than their windows counterparts. Although if security is an issue the use Linux or UNIX. If you dont want ANYONE to EVER compromise your computer, then use OpenBSD (only 1 documented compromise EVER). The only good thing about Macs is that noone wants to waste thier time writing virii and adware for them. That was a long time ago though. I dont know anything about their new OS versions. If you want performance however, Mac is not for you. Their R+D just cant keep up with the big companies. Their dual processore "dream computers" are a bad joke.

----------------

Complete and utter nonsense!

First, the Macs are simply a shell on top of FreeBSD UNIX!

They don't develop the OS!!!!! They simply write the shell! And OSX is the most POSIX compliant of the UNIXes available!

Now you ARE in my territory of Information Assurance, and the Mac is seeing increased penetration, particularly in the server realm! And security, cost, and ease of administration, and cross platform compatibility ARE the driving issues!

Oh, and not to confuse you, but the Mac's hardware is literally an IBM RS6000 clone (albeit with a 'small' version(the G5 based on old Power4 technology) of the what IBM is generally using (Power5) and they have gone with industry standard drives and left the native SCSI drives they used to use, and they do not develop the OS - they ONLY develop the shell and the topology of the particular units! ALL the other technoogy is coming directly from a few state of the art sources!

[pauln]

Is the IPOD a contender? Most of those I know that listened to CDs have gone to IPODS.

[dragonfyr]

----------------

On 8/2/2005 2:17:38 PM pauln wrote:

Is the IPOD a contender? Most of those I know that listened to CDs have gone to IPODS.

----------------

You would have to bring up the MP3 and associated proprietary archival schemes! And some say I like to stir the pot!

In my opinion, they offer some advantages in the form of portability. But other then that, I have no real use for them. But hey, if your out running around the form factor can make alot of sense! (Gee, did I actually say that!?)

[jacksonbart]

"EAC is a terrific ripper too"

So is my dog if I let her eat pizza.

[JJkizak]

One wonders what Bell Labs would have come up with after Unix under the old ATT legacy maybe something that resembles the DNA Quad chain.

JJK

[Mallette]

>Is the IPOD a contender? Most of those I know that listened to CDs have gone to IPODS.

That's a relatively easy one technically. Most folks I know that listened to LP's have gone to CD's. Some of us like both. The reason is they are completely different media each with their own qualities and drawbacks.

Same with IPOD or CD. IPOD plays MP3's. It's a bit confusing now with CD players that will transparently play MP3's, but what we've classically considered a CD conforms to the venerable "Redbook" standard for compression and error correction. MP3 compression follows a standard as well...but folks can manipulate the standard to suit themselves. That often results in AWFUL sounding music with no life.

I've only heard a few MP3's I would consider anything like "hifi," but much of what is listened to in that format is of genres where hearing the subtleties of a Strad vs. an Amati is not the point.

Just remember: MP3 and Redbook are two completely different things for two different purposes having only both being digital in common...perhaps similar to the same music on cassette and on LP. Never did see a Walkman turntable on the market! ;-)

Like anything else, to each his own and see my signature below!