Yes, the HCDC subcode gets copied onto the CD-R. |
Joe_Coherent, I certainly will not retract those, and instead demand a more suitable apology from you. And you don't want to mess with me either, I can benchpress 320 pounds. |
That's not at all what we're talking about. I wonder of you can hear a 20 kHz sinewave, Wald? |
My brother believes that the data is RE-SENT (when an unrecoverable error is detected) during the writing process for a data CD-R, and NOT done so during the writing of an audio CD-R. SORRY, but you surely misinterpreted what you think you might have learned thusfar, Dshin. |
No, I have found that they do not sound the same to me. I've not tried every possibility yet, however. |
And there's absolutely no question in my mind that the opposite is true, and is repeatable. |
I wasn't referring to anything other than 1x speed, nor was I referring to MP3. Only a fool would even waste time burning a CD-R at over 1X speed, IMO...........................Joe: You know what? I don't feel like explaining why. If you make lots of copies, and hear no difference, that's fine with me. Be happy, go forth and populate the earth with perfect CD-R's. I never said there was a big difference, just that they don't sound exactly alike to me. I have a few things I am trying that might futher lessen the difference, but I have too many cables and speakers that I am reviewing to waste time wondering why a copy wouldn't be EXACTLY the same as the original. PERHAPS YOU CAN TELL ME WHY A COPY IS IN EVERY WAY, EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE ORIGINAL? (since you want to discuss it). |
And it should be pointed out that the original CD was stamped all at once, and NOT spinning at full speed and having the data burned by a laser into a photo emulsive substrate. So, when a CD-R is "burned", we are talking about it first being read at the full 1x speed, and THEN written at the full 1x speed. And there are a myriad of other factors, such as the light passing thru the "decidedly NOT 'optical lens quality' polycarbonate", TWICE (once to read, once to write, with the writing energy level of light much higher than the reading energy level...all at full speed)...the various reflective properties of the gold or silver reflective layer (those are the only two materials used, no CD-R's use aluminum), the various opacity properties of the different dies used in the photo emulsive substrate. And also, how all of this affects the "jitter performance", which as pointed out above, can be both mechanically-interface-related, and also can take place in the digital domain during the data transfer through the circuitry. My point is, there is NO such thing as a "perfect copy" of anything ANYWHERE, simple physics (and the uncertainty principle) dictate this. Also, my brother is both an EE and a computer programmer, and he informs me that a data CD has much higher tolerance for errors than an audio CD, because of the nature of the error correction of the software (it does perform heavy interpolation to correct for errors...no personal computer would function at all, if this weren't the case). |
In any case, I have direct experience with minor read errors WHICH DO INDEED pass through to the write process, when producing an audio CD-R, and that was at 1x speed both ways. Most everyone in the computer field reads and writes data CD-R's at least at 4x speed, and usually higher, and the data gets transferred and then recorded WITH ABSOLUTELY NO ERRORS. It doesn't matter to me where the interpolation occurs, it's just that it DOES occur, so in my view and experience, you CANNOT compare the process of reading and writing a Data CD-R, with that of reading and writing an Audio CD-R. The nature of CD audio, is that EVEN SMALL ERRORS DO INDEED "GET THROUGH", and everyone in the recording industry who's involved in the production process knows this all too well. |
My multi-thousand dollar CD player played the original CD better than the CD-R machine played it, when I used the CD-R machine to play the original CD, to make the copy. And the CD-R drive did indeed let a read error through, which was then written on two separate CD-R's I made on two separate occasions, in exactly the same place. And the DVD-rom drive read that area of the original CD just fine, but kept encountering a read error 3 tracks after the first one (which the CD-R drive had no trouble with), and would not even allow the CD to be copied. Again, my $3000 CD player played the original CD without missing a beat in EITHER PLACE, and it doesn't even track CD's as well as my cheap 6 year old Sony carousel changer!! THIS IS ALL VERY REPEATABLE...and I reiterate again that there will never be such a thing as a "perfect" copy of anything, especially in the world of digital audio. You would have to downgrade the term "perfect", to something else that is NOT actually perfect. |
I go with my own experience, as opposed to blindly agreeing that "it ought to be" a certain way. I never said I wasn't happy with CD-R, I just said that it isn't perfect. |
Perhaps that is true; and in any case, you have made up your mind, and so have I, Tubegroover. I can't even imagine anyone NOT hearing a difference (in a decent system), and I doubt there's any way I can prove it to you just by simply repeating myself here, especially if you can't hear it for yourself in the first place. So what are we talking about, here? None of us are swaying each other's findings or opinions...ABSOLUTELY in ANY way...so what is this about, then? |
I'm thinking you don't. Like hell they don't, you wouldn't want to get a punch from me...You will soon be gone from here, for the name calling, anyway. I'm sure it is YOU who will (or are already) using different aliases, so you'll never be gone from here completely, I guess. Maybe you'll just have a heart attack, or something... |
No, it isn't. And the "music" on a CD is not stored as "1's and 0's", it's stored using an encoding scheme called "Eight-to-Fourteen Modulation", or "EFM". It's not "just a bunch of 1's and 0's" on there, they're encoded, and then derived when they are read...to form those 1's and 0's. THIS IS TURNING INTO THE OLD "DIGITAL IS DIGITAL, AND BITS IS BITS" ARGUMENT...which is also a fool's argument. I DID MY HOMEWORK, AND I SUGGEST YOU ALL DO THE SAME. Why don't you do a survey of ALL the highend digital audio music production and mastering facilites, and ask them why a CD-R would sound exactly the same, and be a "perfect" copy of, a stamped CD? I'm sure they'll love to hear from you...Start with Winston Ma of FIM, and go from there. |
That's your opinion, and it most certainly isn't fact. CD-R's aren't simple numerical copies at all. You need to brush up on the basics of digital audio, and pulse code modulation. And THAT is fact, and we ALL recognize THAT. I am neither closed minded, nor do I "not like" digital. I am simply telling it like I hear it. If you don't hear it that way, please do not tell me what I hear, or don't hear. That is the epitamy of arrogance, insolence, closed-mindedness, and shows a lack of any civility. I AM NOT TELLING YOU WHAT YOU ARE HEARING, so kindly refrain from telling me what I hear. I have an imagination, but I can also hear at least as well as the best human ears in the world can. |
Ryan, thanks for shedding some more light on this! I am still comparing that CD-R you lent me, besides making lots of my own. |
You ought to do that. Actually, even my brother who isn't an audiophile heard the difference immediately. And this wasn't some half ass copy either, this one was made by a Tascam CDRW5000 with a Meridian 506.24 as the transport. I am not seeking to put machinery before music...NEVER HAVE, NEVER WILL. And thank YOU for THAT kind compliment, along with the continuing judgemental attitude. If you have such a problem with all of this, you ought to refrain from commenting in this thread, since you can't control your emotions, and aren't bringing anything even remotely objective to the table. |
Forgive my spelling, and I'll forgive your cheap shot of pointing it out. Look, I don't need a moral lecture from you on this, and I never said that the comparisons were anything other than "direct", nor did I ever say that I didn't enjoy putting music on CD-R's (I do). My point in this thread was to answer the question at the top, and not to belabor it to those who are closed-minded on the subject. If you can't hear a difference, I'LL SAY ONE LAST TIME, PLEASE DO NOT TELL ME (or snidely imply) THAT I DO NOT, or otherwise presume in a most pompous manner that your system is somehow more resolved than mine (and therefore I am hearing some other anomaly). THAT IS THE EPITOME OF ARROGANCE, at least in this hobby...and NOT just making a typo when typing the word. And BTW, "supersonic" refers to velocity, and not frequency. AND IF YOU ARE SO PETTY AND IMMATURE THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE THE LAST WORD HERE, THEN I AM EVOLVED AND CONFIDENT ENOUGH TO ALLOW YOU THE INSOLENT PLEASURE OF HAVING IT, madisonears. So have at it (and realize that in doing so, you are illustrating your personal bias against ME, for everyone here to judge)... |
You are not a scientist, and I have no reason to debate you on this. You need to ask those who are experts in the field, as I suggest above, if you don't accept what I am telling you. The "digital is digital" argument doesn't apply here, because we are not talking about mere digital data, we are talking about the process of digital audio, which is far from simple. You ought to read a book or two on the subject, and consult a few reference uadio books. Like I said, ask Winston Ma if he thinks CD-R's represent perfect copies of a compact disc. Ask Kevin Halverson. Ask Madrigal Audio Laboratories. Ask any manufacturer of digital media or hardware. I'll not belabor this with someone who his blind to it, and who will not take me at my word. I owe you nothing here at all, Mr. incoherent. |
Also, I notice that neither of you have feedback on file here at Audiogon. For me, that speaks volumes about YOUR credibility here. I need to adopt the policy that I'll not respond to those who have less positive feedback than I do. Perhaps that is where this agnaustic and negative attitude comes from (the fact that neither of you have bought or sold anything here). I wonder how that could be? What are you afraid of? |
That's a complete turnaround for you Madisonears, and I admire it. Also, that's EXACTLY what I hear. I think of it as a grainy distortion, but one MFSL gold CD's copy actually was more compressed and even quieter sounding (in addition to the graininess)...which was very troubling to me, because I didn't want to buy the original (they're all out of print, and out of business now). Tell this to Ejlif, he thinks copies ALWAYS sound better!!! I CANNOT FATHOM THAT. I've never heard a copy that sounds as good as the original, much less "better". I'm trying one of his, and he wants to send me the original (since my copy is not the exact physically same disc). I say it doesn't matter, because either his original is the same as mine, or it's worse. His copy definitely is not as good as my original (this is Sarah McLachlin's "Mirror Ball"). Also, I recently opened up that Pandora's box called the "green pen". I used to think that it'd be permanent, but this one comes off with rubbing alcohol and a cotton swab, in case you want to remove the green. |
Look, it wasn't me that started the cheapshots, it was Joe (or whoever he is). Ramstl, If you hear a difference, then we agree. I am neither a manufacturer nor a leading music producer, so why does it matter to any of you what else I have to say on this? I refuse to repeat myself any longer. You all win. I am a terrible person who can't help but be wrong all the time, and all I do is "blather". I can't help myself, I'm a retarded idiot. By all means, come to your own conclusions, don't take anything I say seriously. There, are you happy now? AND HELL NO, I DON'T POST AS SOMEONE ELSE, AND IF I WERE THERE WITH YOU IN PERSON JOE, YOU'D BE TASTING YOUR OWN BLOOD RIGHT NOW FOR DISHONORING ME THAT WAY!!! I've said over and over again, how freaking much I hate all those pissant posters that don't use their own name, and come back and post as yet another anonymous numbskull. I AM NOT ONE OF THESE PEOPLE, AND YOU'RE LUCKY I'M NOT THERE WITH YOU RIGHT NOW. Damn lucky! You'd definitely be literally "incoherent" if I was. Where the hell do you get off accusing me of something like that? You're asking for it, you LOWLIFE! |
Not going nuts, and it wasn't you who insulted me anyways(much, heh heh). I can help you. What software are you using? I've found a really good software for doing the read part, it's from Germany and it's called "Nero". You can download a trial version for free. But I'm still trying to figure out what the best software is, for the write process. Certainly for putting MP3's (like from Napster) on CD-R's, it's Adaptec, IMO. Anyway, what I think Kthomas means, is that of keeping the "CD image" file, and making another CD-R from it. That isn't difficult to do. Anyway, the Nero software is really awesome (provided the CD isn't copy protected, to where it reads as having over 700 megabytes of data...you have to throw tracks away to copy those)...since you cannot copy a CD a "tack at a time" with Nero. But what's awesome about it is that you can use "jitter reduction". It took around 3 hours to read my Sheffield "My Disc" test CD at 1x speed (and it's only 74 minutes long!). However, I couldn't use that image file to burn a CD, because the data amounted to a high (and in actuality impossible) 749 megabytes!! 74 minute CD-R's are 650 mB, and 80 minute ones are 700 mB. So I had to read it with a different software, and throw out the first 5 music tracks. Then I subbed in 5 Napster files for the first 5 music tracks, so the track count would be the same. |
Thanks for the support Tedr. I don't even know you. JOE, PLEASE TELL ME WHY YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MEMBER FEEDBACK? WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF? And as far as "my only friend" on here, many of my friends on here cannot fathom why I'd even waste time LISTENING to CD's in the first place; much less debate about CD-R's. They just don't care. Also, they're mostly afraid of being associated with me on this forum, because so many of you out there hate me (and I realize that it IS a personal thing, so don't claim it isn't...you know who you are). I'm a lightening rod for jerks, and bring out the worst in people. Such is life on the net, when you have an informed opinion. I CAN LIVE WITH IT, but others seem to have trouble with it. And I'm not complaining, just stating fact..............................I tell you what Joe, you're right, and I'm wrong. I'm a total ignoramous, an idiot, a malcontent who has a heart as black as coal (oh wait a minute, that's "the grinch")....hell, I'm so stupid I was thinking I already explained HOW they sound different to me. As to WHY...well, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is enough of an explanation for me, as to why there is never a "perfect" anything. The more you know about position, the less you can know about vector, etc etc., ask any physicist..........................Joe, let me ask you this: If you really are a scientist, as you claim, then....Why does our universe move towards disorder, rather than order? Why is there no theory that unifies gravity, with quantum mechanics? Why is it, that we as humans can't simply create matter and anti-matter, out of sheer mental will (since it would provide an infinite source of "free" power)? Why is all that, I wonder???..........................And also, what's on the other side of a black hole's event horizon? I need to know, so how about taking a flying leap into one for me? I think you'd enjoy it very much...there could be a microscopic black hole in orbit within your skull, nibbling at your hindbrain right this very minute....you never know. I wish you all the best with that....Carl |
Kthomas, those comments weren't addressed to you, unless of course you are both kthomas and joe-coherent...which I have no way of knowing. |
Ramstl, in the above comments, I suggest that those who are in doubt, seek out the opinion of experts. Perhaps you missed that part, or perhaps you think you need me to do your homework for you? I'll ask again, why would their comments, when repeated by me, have any meaning for you? Surely you'd doubt their truthfullness/sincerity/accuracy, when viewed thru the filter of being delievered by myself, functioning as an unnecessary middle man. Let me repeat myself.....if you really want to know the truth about CD-R's, and how "digital ain't always digital, how bits ain't always bits", YOU should ask the experts. I WONDER WHY YOU HAVEN'T E-MAILED THEM YOURSELF? WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF? |
In any case, I certainly will not speak for experts in the field. |
Ramstl, I could tell by the way you worded your question, that you "didn't really care anyway", so again, I find it strange that you were looking for a friendly exchange of aything from me....since you admit you could care less. It's possible that we agree on the CD-R issue, and I'm sure that by the time I'm your age, I'll have done many millions of recordings also. I'm considering buying some new mics, myself. I only use a "one-point" stereo condensor one right now, record on a portable DAT, and don't do many music performances, and certainly nothing "big time", yet. You did not hurt my feelings the least bit, so don't agonize over that. |
Kthomas: YES you are sure any fuss is being made, or you wouldn't be disputing one point of view over another. Look, you are being closed minded, to my point of view, and my experience. Read above what my experience was. I don't care if you claim you can make a "perfect copy" 100 vigintillion times over (and you can look that number up), I still had trouble just getting ONE image file without a glitch, from a Mobile Fidelity Gold CD. The glitch showed up in the same place in the same track "time after time after time", as I read the CD over and over, and made image files that were "bit perfect". It then proceeded to write this glitch onto two separate CD-R's, from two separate image files. My gripe? My highend CD player played the original CD many times over, WITH NO GLITCH WHATSOEVER. It WAS a read error, and it made the CD-R copy NOT indentical to the original....besides the fact that the rest of the CD-R was more dynamically compressed, more distorted, and had much less air in the top octave...than the original. THOSE LATTER ASPECTS HAVE OCCURRED EVERY TIME I'VE MADE A CD-R (and also thusfar in my comparison with Ejlif's CD-R, copied on a Meridian/Tascam setup), even when the "data" DOES get "copied perfectly". ALL I'VE DONE IS DEFEND MY POSITION IN ANSWER TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION AT THE TOP OF THE THREAD. And that is what I consider to be FACT: that a CD-R does NOT sound exactly like the original, and DOES INDEED seem to lose data in the process of creating one, in some fashion. IF YOU'RE SO INTERESTED IN WHAT WE FEEL THE SONIC DIFFERENCES ARE (between original and CD-R copy), WHY AREN'T YOU RETAINING THIS INFORMATION AS YOU READ IT? I've stated it over and over again, I don't know how many times. Just read what I say above. Others are even in agreement with me. I'm not saying that there aren't other factors at play with CD-R's, but please don't tell me this debate is about "data", because it's only "data" BEFORE it gets READ the first time. After that, it's a PROCESS called digital audio...To argue any other view than that is utter foolishness. AND WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THE SONY-PHILLIPS CONGLOMERATE EVEN WANTS PROS IN THE MUSIC INDUSTRY TO MAKE "ABSOLUTELY PERFECT COPIES", USING THE CD-R PROCESS...much less CONSUMERS?? Can you be that naive, to think that "there ought to be a simple/easy way to make unquestionably perfect copies of CD's"? GET REAL! |
Ramstl: Other than occasionally Kevin Halverson, you won't find any experts here...but you knew that already, didn't you? |
Mfgrep: So far, I hear exactly the same thing your brother heard, from the CD-R disc that Ejlif made with his Meridian transport/Tascam CD-R machine. I also hear EXACTLY the same thing with the copies I make with my $89 computer CD-RW. I don't know what all the fuss is about. They ARE NOT a truely perfect copy, but of course they suffice (I never said they didn't). That's why I use CD-R's, and am happy with them. THEY SUFFICE, AND THEY NEED NOT BE UNIQUIVACALLY PERFECT TO SERVE THEIR PURPOSE...................To all the doubters, there's ZERO point in arguing WHY they "REALLY ARE" a "perfect" copy, because those of us who have a decent system, trust our ears (and can hear 20 kHz), KNOW what we hear....DAD-GUMMIT!!! There's no need to waste your time here anymore, YOU CAN'T TELL US THAT WE DO NOT HEAR, WHAT WE (and anyone else who listens, in my system's case) DO IN FACT HEAR!...........Isn't it all really about the music anyway? I thought it was. Apparently you guys have never heard that expression before... |
Realizing that Joe hasn't had a heart attack yet, and that no one is reading my comments in this thread anymore, I will abandon it. I hope you all enjoy "perfect sound forever", and kiss my bum! |
(From the above post) ""Jitter read from a CD will affect how well the read servo stays locked, and how much the read servo has irregular power supply demands. Just about everything and anything affect the power supply, so reduce jitter read from the disc, and it will affect the accuracy of the playback event.""...................(And likely the accuracy of the CD image file?). I interpret this also in the making CD-R copies with a personal computer. The better the read-software, the better the copy will be. Nero has a "jitter reduction" feature when the CD to be copied, gets read. The CD is read/re-read several times, before the final CD image is created and stored on the hard drive. For me, It took nearly 4 hours for it to read a 74 minute CD. That said, the software costs $50, and I'd rather demo other free software before I buy, even though I doubt there is any better software than Nero, at least where accuracy is a concern. Adaptec is perfect for burning CD's from MP3 files. |
