CDR Better than original ?

[hybridauth_facebook_100000244515144]

Don't forget to colour the cd green after you burn it lol.

 

[MaxD]

I also heard CD-RW is even better. Captures the details in harpsichord recordings almost as good as vinyl.

LOL are you joking again? This is so stupid. I remember like in early 90s, when CD burning hardware was so expensive, they used to sell some CDs named AUDIO cds. The difference, in the eyes of the sellers, was that those CDs were made to last. It couldn't be any other difference, and that just was a marketing difference, in the way you digitally reproduce 0s and 1s. The the final part, the most important part, is and still will be totally analog: the speakers and especially our ears

 

[hybridauth_facebook_100000244515144]

I think i'll copy my FLAC files to a bigger hard drive as they have a more 'airy' feel as the extra space gives it more room to really breathe. The mids open up and the instruments just come out and hit you like you were at the concert.

 

[rdburman]

I keep my library in various image formats like BIN/CUE and NRGs. Load them while needed via virtual drives. Never ever in my life and never I have felt any difference whatsoever in them. They are just dump of 1s and 0s exactly in the same pattern as it is written on the master - CD.

Howcan a CD-R even change the sound? If these 1s and 0s are disturbed, the song will simply get corrupted. The 0s and 1s are actually converted to analog sound once they travel through your sound card by the DAC present there. Alternatively you can send these to a USB DAC. Whatever....

A CD-R can never ever change the sound quality if it has been copied either Disc to Disc or via Disc Image

Alternatively, if you rip a CD to WAV files and then do some processing on these WAV files with a software like Audacity to increase the gain etc and then again re-write these WAV files back to a CD-R the sound can change. But in that case YOU are changing it.

Don't mind but the OP needs to study computer fundamentals.

 

[ReValveiT]

I also heard CD-RW is even better. Captures the details in harpsichord recordings almost as good as vinyl.

LOL are you joking again? This is so stupid. I remember like in early 90s, when CD burning hardware was so expensive, they used to sell some CDs named AUDIO cds. The difference, in the eyes of the sellers, was that those CDs were made to last. It couldn't be any other difference, and that just was a marketing difference, in the way you digitally reproduce 0s and 1s. The the final part, the most important part, is and still will be totally analog: the speakers and especially our ears

'Audio' CDR's weren't marketed because they sounded better or lasted longer; these discs had a 'tax' on them paid to the record industry as compensation and (supposedly) were the only discs that would work with stand-alone CD recorders.

Of course most people used PC CD recorders which were much harder for the industry to impose these limitations and would record audio to any disc.

 

[MaxD]

I also heard CD-RW is even better. Captures the details in harpsichord recordings almost as good as vinyl.

LOL are you joking again? This is so stupid. I remember like in early 90s, when CD burning hardware was so expensive, they used to sell some CDs named AUDIO cds. The difference, in the eyes of the sellers, was that those CDs were made to last. It couldn't be any other difference, and that just was a marketing difference, in the way you digitally reproduce 0s and 1s. The the final part, the most important part, is and still will be totally analog: the speakers and especially our ears

'Audio' CDR's weren't marketed because they sounded better or lasted longer; these discs had a 'tax' on them paid to the record industry as compensation and (supposedly) were the only discs that would work with stand-alone CD recorders.

Not in Italy or France, the country I live and I lived. It didn't had any tax, they were most expensive just becouse they were advised like "musical cds". I'm sure maybe in your country there were a tax, not in mine.

 

[nopiano]

I also heard CD-RW is even better. Captures the details in harpsichord recordings almost as good as vinyl.

LOL are you joking again? This is so stupid. I remember like in early 90s, when CD burning hardware was so expensive, they used to sell some CDs named AUDIO cds. The difference, in the eyes of the sellers, was that those CDs were made to last. It couldn't be any other difference, and that just was a marketing difference, in the way you digitally reproduce 0s and 1s. The the final part, the most important part, is and still will be totally analog: the speakers and especially our ears

Even I knew Vlad was pulling our legs there!

 

[unsleepable]

This is so stupid. I remember like in early 90s, when CD burning hardware was so expensive, they used to sell some CDs named AUDIO cds. The difference, in the eyes of the sellers, was that those CDs were made to last. It couldn't be any other difference, and that just was a marketing difference, in the way you digitally reproduce 0s and 1s.

Actually, the main differences between the types of CD-R media are the recording speed and the durability. CDs don't last as much as people normally think.

It does make sense to use more durable disks for audio than for, let's say, data backups or programs.

 

[MajorFubar]

It does make sense to use more durable disks for audio than for, let's say, data backups or programs.

That's very true. I've had a few CDRs die on me after 7-10 years of storage. And not necessarily the cheap spindled unbranded ones either. Actually I think they've lasted the best!

 

[MaxD]

This is so stupid. I remember like in early 90s, when CD burning hardware was so expensive, they used to sell some CDs named AUDIO cds. The difference, in the eyes of the sellers, was that those CDs were made to last. It couldn't be any other difference, and that just was a marketing difference, in the way you digitally reproduce 0s and 1s.

Actually, the main differences between the types of CD-R media are the recording speed and the durability. CDs don't last as much as people normally think.

It does make sense to use more durable disks for audio than for, let's say, data backups or programs.

I say they are all the same. I do have early '90s Kodak data cd with music on them and they are still playable. There is no difference at all, it doesn't exist Audio cds and Data cds. You will be surprised that also in expensive recording studios people do use simply CD-Rs to make masters. Just we do multiple copy of it on normal quality cd.

BTW, this is also my personal attitude for my collection and stuff, multiple copy of everything and I'm done.

Audio cd-r are just marketing hype, I never ever know if they still exist.

 

[hammill]

This is so stupid. I remember like in early 90s, when CD burning hardware was so expensive, they used to sell some CDs named AUDIO cds. The difference, in the eyes of the sellers, was that those CDs were made to last. It couldn't be any other difference, and that just was a marketing difference, in the way you digitally reproduce 0s and 1s.

Actually, the main differences between the types of CD-R media are the recording speed and the durability. CDs don't last as much as people normally think.

It does make sense to use more durable disks for audio than for, let's say, data backups or programs.

So your family photos are less important than a piece of music you can almost certainly get another copy of? I think it makes more sense the other way round (not there is any appreciable difference between recordable CDs) Any non music data I backup is generally precious.

 

[manicm]

When it comes to copying music CDs to another disc, no, digital is not just digital. You actually cannot make an exact copy of a CD using a computer because the music is first ripped to WAV and then these WAV files are burned onto a disc. Remember an original music CD contains data in PCM format.

When you copy a cd using a computer it takes the cd as an image, an iso - which is a bulk dump of the disc as data. the computer doesn't know, and doesn't care what's on the disc. It then burns that image back to the cd. Wav doesn't even come in to it.

I can promise you most cd-writing software will NOT make a direct copy of an orginal music CD - it's first ripping to WAVs behind the scenes and then burning these WAVs to CDs.

 

[manicm]

That doesn't make sense. Digital is Digital. That's like saying a jpg looks better on an SD card than onboard memory. Some of the conversations on hifi forums are distressing. I sould apologize for keeping it going. I'm off to Tapeheads.

When it comes to copying music CDs to another disc, no, digital is not just digital. You actually cannot make an exact copy of a CD using a computer because the music is first ripped to WAV and then these WAV files are burned onto a disc. Remember an original music CD contains data in PCM format.

If you first rip it as WAV and reburn it as a CD, there might be minute differences to the new CD structure. For example there can be differences of a few samples each way between how different CD drives read and interpret track-splits, also you might burn the new CD with different inter-track gaps (which is more noticeable). But the data that makes up the music will be copied bit-perfectly and will be identical. There are no vaguaries like those associated with analogue copying. Feel free to prove it to yourself by ripping a song from any commercial CD as a WAV, burning it to a fresh CD without any modification, ripping that and checking that they they null each other when you align the rips absolutely precisely sample-for-sample in Audacity and invert one. (Any DAW will do this, but Audacity is free to download and is good enough.) Rest assured, they will null each other. Absolutely perfectly.

Look I've been burning music CDs since 2001 for my car until 3 years ago when I purchased a new car with a USB port, so I have a fair amount of experience and I know what I'm talking about.

I can guarantee you 13 years ago, 99.999% of CD-writing software really converted a music CD to WAVs before burning to disc - I could see these files myself - and different software gave different results, as well as blank discs. Also, back then burning CDs was sometimes notoriously a hit and miss affair what with fiddling with memory stream buffers and God knows what. With my first HP burner I landed with an amusing amount of coasters, much to my wallet's dismay.

 

[Alec]

files are converted to WAV before being saved as another format when you rip, say FLACs. When you burn a song you get exactly the same thing on the CDR as yopu had on the computer you stored the file you burned on.

 

[MaxD]

That doesn't make sense. Digital is Digital. That's like saying a jpg looks better on an SD card than onboard memory. Some of the conversations on hifi forums are distressing. I sould apologize for keeping it going. I'm off to Tapeheads.

When it comes to copying music CDs to another disc, no, digital is not just digital. You actually cannot make an exact copy of a CD using a computer because the music is first ripped to WAV and then these WAV files are burned onto a disc. Remember an original music CD contains data in PCM format.

If you first rip it as WAV and reburn it as a CD, there might be minute differences to the new CD structure. For example there can be differences of a few samples each way between how different CD drives read and interpret track-splits, also you might burn the new CD with different inter-track gaps (which is more noticeable). But the data that makes up the music will be copied bit-perfectly and will be identical. There are no vaguaries like those associated with analogue copying. Feel free to prove it to yourself by ripping a song from any commercial CD as a WAV, burning it to a fresh CD without any modification, ripping that and checking that they they null each other when you align the rips absolutely precisely sample-for-sample in Audacity and invert one. (Any DAW will do this, but Audacity is free to download and is good enough.) Rest assured, they will null each other. Absolutely perfectly.

Look I've been burning music CDs since 2001 for my car until 3 years ago when I purchased a new car with a USB port, so I have a fair amount of experience and I know what I'm talking about.

I can guarantee you 13 years ago, 99.999% of CD-writing software really converted a music CD to WAVs before burning to disc - I could see these files myself - and different software gave different results, as well as blank discs. Also, back then burning CDs was sometimes notoriously a hit and miss affair what with fiddling with memory stream buffers and God knows what. With my first HP burner I landed with an amusing amount of coasters, much to my wallet's dismay.

If you copy the disc from a burner to the same burner, it wont rip the CD on WAV format, it simply do a DIGITAL COPY (an exact binary copy) of the content of the CD in Binary format, one big file with the exact sequence of the 0's and 1's present on the original disc). So the CD is discharged on HD, then it still retain is digital, unplayable (unless you mount it with an emulator) format. Then it will be write on the blank disc with the exact sampled sequence of 0s and 1s present on the original CD and discharged on the HD.

No conversion to WAV need to happen. This is also the reason becouse if you do have two burners, like I do, in your system you can easily direct copy the discs.

 

[unsleepable]

So your family photos are less important than a piece of music you can almost certainly get another copy of? I think it makes more sense the other way round (not there is any appreciable difference between recordable CDs) Any non music data I backup is generally precious.

I understand why you'd say that, but I am afraid it's exactly the opposite. There is a reason why backup media for data is usually not the most expensive and durable, and it is that backed up data must be periodically rotated and refreshed in order to maintain the availability and integrity of the data. It doesn't make sense to get very durable media because the backup does not usually remain relevant for so long.

If your backup strategy for the family pictures consists of having them in a CD-R, which you expect to last for long, I'd suggest to rethink it. Even the best quality CD-R media is typically not guaranteed beyond 10 years—and that is, assuming the drive did a good job recording it.

As for audio CDs, most of the times they can be easily replaced for less money than would cost keeping a backup. Therefore, we are usually content with a single copy. But since we are keeping a single copy, it makes sense to spend more money in the media so that it works longer.

 

[unsleepable]

If you copy the disc from a burner to the same burner, it wont rip the CD on WAV format, it simply do a DIGITAL COPY (an exact binary copy) of the content of the CD in Binary format, one big file with the exact sequence of the 0's and 1's present on the original disc). So the CD is discharged on HD, then it still retain is digital, unplayable (unless you mount it with an emulator) format. Then it will be write on the blank disc with the exact sampled sequence of 0s and 1s present on the original CD and discharged on the HD.

No conversion to WAV need to happen. This is also the reason becouse if you do have two burners, like I do, in your system you can easily direct copy the discs.

I don't get the point of this discussion… It is possible to copy a CD by making an image first, and recording the image back to a blank CD. Or it is possible to rip and write the tracks independently. Any decent recording software will be able to do both things.

I'd argue that ripping to tracks is the most common option for audio, though. And still, the copy will be the same as the original, including the gaps between the tracks.

 

[unsleepable]

Look I've been burning music CDs since 2001 for my car until 3 years ago when I purchased a new car with a USB port, so I have a fair amount of experience and I know what I'm talking about.

I can guarantee you 13 years ago, 99.999% of CD-writing software really converted a music CD to WAVs before burning to disc - I could see these files myself - and different software gave different results, as well as blank discs. Also, back then burning CDs was sometimes notoriously a hit and miss affair what with fiddling with memory stream buffers and God knows what. With my first HP burner I landed with an amusing amount of coasters, much to my wallet's dismay.

What you are saying here is true, but I'm afraid it is very outdated and not relevant to current technology.

It used to be the case that in order to record a CD, it was required to maintain a constant flow of data as the laser could not be stopped until the recording was finished. That was like 15 years ago at least, and current drivers do not suffer from this issue.

It was possible, though, to stop the recording between audio tracks. Therefore, it was safer to rip a CD into tracks, and record the tracks independently—as it was more probable that the recording buffer would deplete in the time needed to write a complete CD image, than when writing a single track. Again not relevant to current technology.

Computer CD drives also used to be notoriously bad at reading audio—after all, they were designed for data. They would mess up streamed data by skipping sectors or misaligning them. Because of this, it was typical to rip audio CDs employing a technique which, funnily enough, used to be called "jitter." This consisted in, for each sector, reading the last bits of the previous one and also a few of the next one, so that it would be possible to align all the sectors together and get a bit-perfect copy of the audio. This increased considerably the time needed to read the CD, but it worked. I'm afraid that this issue is again not relevant to current technology—even if current software still implement this technique, as for example iTunes does, most drives will simply ignore the commands received to perform the "jitter", and will employ their own internal methods to ensure that the audio read is bit-perfect.

 

[MaxD]

First method (making exact binary image) is the default method used by ANY burning software on the market. Option two is used by CD ripping software, and it is a different story. If you want an exact copy of a CD it is advisable to use a proper burning software and do not introduce two useless pass to the procedure (rip them to wav, convert them to binary CD format).

 

[cheeseboy]

I can promise you most cd-writing software will NOT make a direct copy of an orginal music CD - it's first ripping to WAVs behind the scenes and then burning these WAVs to CDs.

It may have done uber years ago if you were doing a track copy, but nowadays it doesn't. Please stop peddling this nonsense. Putting NOT in CAPTIALS DOES NOT MAKE IT MORE TRUE....

 

[cheeseboy]

Look I've been burning music CDs since 2001 for my car until 3 years ago when I purchased a new car with a USB port, so I have a fair amount of experience and I know what I'm talking about.

it's a shame that you don't, you just think you do. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_disc_authoring

 

[Vladimir]

We recently did a test on a different forum to prove or disprove the claims of members that converting wav to flac and back deteriorates sound quality, which is audible like 'night and day'.

A batch of random named files was generated, some clean wav, some converted wav > flac > wav up to 10 times and users could download the files and listen if there is a difference. After the results we also did a hex analysis of the binary code.
The files: Roswell Rudd, Steve Lacy, Misha Mengelberg, Kent Carter, Hank Bennink - Regeneration - Epistrophy

 

[fr0g]

When it comes to copying music CDs to another disc, no, digital is not just digital. You actually cannot make an exact copy of a CD using a computer because the music is first ripped to WAV and then these WAV files are burned onto a disc. Remember an original music CD contains data in PCM format.

When you copy a cd using a computer it takes the cd as an image, an iso - which is a bulk dump of the disc as data. the computer doesn't know, and doesn't care what's on the disc. It then burns that image back to the cd. Wav doesn't even come in to it.

I can promise you most cd-writing software will NOT make a direct copy of an orginal music CD - it's first ripping to WAVs behind the scenes and then burning these WAVs to CDs.

Why are you repeating this ignorant garbage?

WAV is a file extension for PCM. It is the same thing.

Not that it would matter anyway. It is digital data, and as long as you stay in the lossless domain the rip will be identical to the CD.

And at any point, you can recreate the CD if you wish, exactly as the original.

If you wanted you could rip each track, compress to lossless flac, burn those to a DVD, take them to another computer, transcode back to WAV, and then if you wish, burn a CD, identical to the original. You just need the right tools.

 

[ReValveiT]

We recently did a test on a different forum to prove or disprove the claims of members that converting wav to flac and back deteriorates sound quality, which is audible like 'night and day'.

A batch of random named files was generated, some clean wav, some converted wav > flac > wav up to 10 times and users could download the files and listen if there is a difference. After the results we also did a hex analysis of the binary code.

The files: Roswell Rudd, Steve Lacy, Misha Mengelberg, Kent Carter, Hank Bennink - Regeneration - Epistrophy

You needn't have gone through all that trouble. A simple null test will prove there is absolutely zero alteration to the files. You can convert >WAV>FLAC>ALAC and all the way back again 100,000 times if you like, but the resulting file will not have altered from the original.

The 'night and day' crowd likely have £1000's invested in cables too.

 

[MajorFubar]

]Look I've been burning music CDs since 2001 for my car until 3 years ago when I purchased a new car with a USB port, so I have a fair amount of experience and I know what I'm talking about.

You joined the party late, I've been burning my own CDs since late last century. But that's irrelevant, you're still wrong, which should be obvious to you if you really think about what you're suggesting. Did you try the test I suggested of comparing a ripped WAV from an original CD to a ripped WAV from a copy of the CD, and proving to yourself that when perfectly aligned they are so absolutely identical that they will pass the null test (unless the copy has been deliberately manipulated in some way)? I'm guessing you didn't. On the whole, different beliefs make the world a richer place, but some beliefs are just plain wrong. Sorry to sound blunt.