Audio CD-R's versus regular CD-R's?


I have a computer cd burner which I use for copying music from friends' "store-bought" cd's. I am wondering if the "audio" cd-r's are really better designed for recording music and have better sound quality than the standard cd-r's, or is this just marketing? The music or audio cd-r's are more expensive so if there is not a difference between these and the standard ones, I'd rather save the money and get the standard ones. Does anybody detect a difference? Also, what brands are recommended to buy?
First let me say that it is admirable to see you admit to a felony in a public forum; at least your honest. If only murders and drug runners (I do not concider pot a drug) would take lessons from you.

Anyway, to answer your question (I have put a lot of thought into this subject) the only difference I can think of is in the reflective properties of the media used. A cdr 'designed' for music may have better attributes in regards to light refractivity, whereas data cds don't care...they just want to convey this is a 1 or a 0. Same concept as cd mats, or the green pen you can color your cds with which are suppose to help the laser read the pits. The theory (IMO) is valid, but weather or not data cdrs and music cdrs sound different is subjective, and I'm sure would be slight. If you are that worried about sound degredation, buy the cd, as those are stamped and not burned.

I think audio CD-Rs work (ie. record) in standard home audio Decorders whereas regular CD-Rs will not. Since
you are using a computer CD-burner and not a standard home audio CD recorder to steal your music you will also be able to save on the price of your CD-Rs by using standard CD-Rs. Now if you want to record a radio broadcast or album you will need a home audio CD-recorder and audio specified CD-Rs. I also recall some discussion about the extra price of the audio CD-Rs being partly to pay musicians fees. Internet hoax or sounds fair.
Music CD-Rs have SCMS copy protection encoded in the disc so a copy cannot be made of the copy, and "consumer grade" CD burners can only use this type of CD-R. This is why SCMS CD-Rs are more expensive. Pro CD burners and computer CD burners can use regular CD-Rs and make multiple copies.

As to brand and quality, some swear by Matsui, but I use Maxell and Sony with a Marantz Pro CD Burner with excellent results. There are only a few factories world wide that can make CD-Rs, so regardless of the brand you choose, the blank was made at one of these factories. I do avoid the real cheap CD-R blanks though as I'm hoping the major, ie Sony, can have some influence on quality control. Use 1X or 2X copy speed for best results. Good Luck. Craig
Buy your music; stealing is stealing. How will your favorite artists make a living if no one is willing to pay for their work? "It's an industry problem, let them deal with it"? "the musicians make enough touring to support themselves"? Not when the concert halls are half full thanks to the recession we're in (we're in denial). Until "the music industry" comes up with an equitable solution then you ought to support the people that make music with your hard-earned greenbacks. The traditional way, buy the music. I make compilation CD's of my own all the time (casual listening in the car etc), the difference is I paid for the music in the first place. If we are all here for the love of the music, then you really ought to reconsider how you support the folks that make the music. Megabuck rigs with no new software? No thanks.

To answer your question, the manufacturer of the blanks doesn't seem to make much difference, but like Craig pointed out, burn the music you own at 1x speed.
bravo jeff, anyone that wants a cheap disc,be it vinyl or cd can find it(used)on ebay for pennies on the long enough and the deal of the century will come up, with the proper revenue paid to the artist.

garfish is right, a music cd-r is incripted, a revenue paid to the record industry is the blame for the higher price.

imho, my dell burning a disc at quasi speed won't come near the quality of my 1:1 phillips 950 audio burner
Jeff, I take offence - I burn tons of CD's - mainly 50's & 60's Jazz, and Blues artists, who unfortunately have been on the wrong side of the grass for years - still the record companys expect us to pay a premium, obscenely high price for $ 0.15 worth of shiny plastic. Where are the royalties going anyway? Who stealing from whom? Heck, how many times is the general public expected to re-purchase their collections with the latest 20 bit, 24 bit, super remastered & expanded versions, whatever, of their favorite recordings. Have you counted the number of new, supposedly superior versions of Miles Davis' 'Birth of the Cool', there has been in the last few years. I purchased the entire David Bowie back catalogue that was remastered (by Rhino, I think) a couple of years ago, now they've just re-released his entire old catalogue again. Big 5 marketing gone amuk.
Anyways, I enjoy, and value your input - keep up the good work Jeff.
Get the standard ones - there's no general difference save for the royalty charge and use-prevention code to go with it. Consumer-market standalone audio CD-R burners/players don't permit the use of such computer disks because they look for the proper code before recognizing the disk, but the pro-market audio machines and of course PC-burners ignore the code, and so should you.

BTW, Dogeatpuppy, how do you figure that purchasing used records or CD's gives royalty payments to artists? Sure, they might have gotten a payment from whoever bought the disk new, but that's the same as the case where Hamiltonmktg borrows the 'store-bought' disk from his friend and copies it.

"Wrong side of the grass"? I love it! Reminds me of when I worked on a golf course in my college days..we had to lay a bunch of sod and I worked alongside a guy who mumbled "green side up, green side up" all day.

Of course you're right in pointing out that once the artist is dead they really don't need much money. In general any royalty payments go to the estate (family), and maybe those monthly checks make a huge difference in their lives? That's not that important to me but thought I'd mention it all the same.

In any event there is a perception that the music companies use their marketing muscle to reap obscene profits, and to some extent that's true. On the other hand they also use some of their profit to take risks and invest in new bands. Like many businesses the overwhelming majority of new acts are a commercial failure, but fortunately for us many are artistic successes. As much as I love Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin I do crave new music and by buying CD's I help fund the launch of new bands. I could list dozens of new bands that have come on the scene in the last ten years, many on indy labels, so not everything that gets pressed is a "formula band". Steal the music and the funds will dry up and we'll be left listening to "Dark Side of the Moon" over and over and over again (many feel there are worse things to do but we'll leave that for another thread).
Thanks guys for your advice. And Jeff, I see your point about buying cd's to support the artists. I do want to say (in my defense) that just in the past few years alone, I've bought hundreds of cd's and spent thousands of dollars in various record stores. So, if I copy a few from a friend every now and then I'm not going to feel guilty about it.
It's not illegal to make analog copies, only digital. And making digital copies is a felony? Wow, sort of like hurting someone's dog is a felony while attacking the owner is a misdemeanor. Or so I've heard.
Cdc, I could of course be wrong, but I have a very hard time believing (in fact, I don't believe) that it could even be a misdemeanor, let alone a felony, to make a digital copy. However, maybe you meant to say *selling* one, which could be.
Lets assume you buy the CD-R for US$0.50 and and the original is $15, the difference is like 30 to 1. Do you think you have a right to ask for a quality comparable to the original when you are actually paying 1/30th of the cost? Even if it is half as good it is still a bargain!

Those who just depend on copies usually do not have a high end system to be able to tell a difference, so that should answer you question.

Zaikesman, Mdomnick said it was a felony:
"First let me say that it is admirable to see you admit to a felony in a public forum; at least your honest. If only murders and drug runners (I do not concider pot a drug) would take lessons from you."
I don't know much about the law except you get in trouble if you break it.
And as for that "speed checked by radar" sign down the street, the Cop was wrong. I was doing 58 not 55. So I think his radar needs some adjustment.
But then he gave me some "certification ticket" so maybe he was right after all. Dunno, I haven't got my speedometer calibrated in a while. Where have all those "measured mile" markers gone anyhow?