Do CD-R's sound the same as originals


does a burned copy of a cd sound the same as the original
soundwatts5b9e

Showing 19 responses by mfgrep

yo waldhorner....LISTEN to something that you have on CDR rather than spouting. I made a copy this am....it is fine...but does not compare with the original. I am using Maxell CDR's and an HP 9150i Burner. If you can't tell the difference then you aren't buying your equipment from Audiogon.
NO NO NO NO NO. I don't know if you heard me correctly. NO! CD'R's sound terrible. The only people that believe that CD'R's or CDRW's sound good are the same people that believe that MP3's sound good.
Wow EJlif....I must try new methods. The CDR's that I have heard sound as if a curtain was hung in front of the music...with poor bass extension and lack of details. I thought them comparable to tape (without the noise problems associated with tape) I too have heard that certain brand discs make a HUGE difference with regard to using them for audio recording. My brother told me which to buy...and I cannot remember. I can inquire if anyone is interested. Interestingly...my new CD player will play CDR's (Levinson no.39), however, my old Muse model 8/296 combo (CD, DVD, 24/96 player) wouldn't read them!! Kevin Halverson at Muse also informed me of some inherent problems with the format from a technical perspective. Problems included degradation of sound and interestingly....he told me that the CDR's cannot be in the heat for long periods (ie: in a hot car). He told me that the CDR's can lose digital information or even blank out in the high heat of a closed auto.
Carl and Joe!!!....man am I laughing!!!!....I posted my last post prior to reading about your streetfight!!! lolololol Anyway...Joe...I gotta tell you...Carl is playing this straight (and I'm not just saying that because I agree with him) C'mon Joe....if it were just x's and o's then why would different components vary so much??? Playing the donkey may require you to carry a heavy load joe! My brother...who was a pro soundman for the motion picture industry....has informed me that on the big $$$ digital equipment in the studios....they actually use a separate cable that acts as a "clock". This clock keeps the timing as precise as possible (more so than on most digital gear). So...even if you only see X's and O's (or -'s)....then wouldn't you agree that if the X's and O's aren't coming out of the digital domain at precisely the correct time that there would be a sound difference??? Forget impedence, power supplies, copper, silver etc....how about TIMING!! Now don't go crazy here...I don't mean that a CDR copy will sound like garbage altogether....I mean....it isn't a distorted garble! I like the photograph analogy. A crisp beautiful picture can be taken from a camera of the same landscape at the same time as a crappy picture from another camera. One may be held steady as a rock on tripod with right aperture settings, clean and precise lens, and meticulously maintained equipment. It seems to me that you are arguing that a multi thousand dollar camera used by a pro photographer would compare to the $10 throwaway camera that I would use if we are standing at the same place at the same point in time photographing the same image. If you look at the pixels...they may closely resemble one another under a microscope...however look altogether different when viewed as a whole. Bye the way...I am 5'7"...and the only way that I will fight either of you is over the internet. How old are we kids? hahahahahahahahahahahaha
Well...the pro CDR guys here have given me the artillery to go back and take another look at the CDR's. I had quit altogether because of the degradation problems that I encountered. It would be fantastic if I could make copy rocordings.
Yes...I've found that hardware makes a difference and that the discs make a difference. In general the CDR's take on a "hard" quailty. They sound unnatural, hard, bright, and metallic. I've found that the Sony CDR's remove alot of the bright metallic twinge and is a vast improvement. The audio recordable discs and equipment sounds considerably better than computer "burner" devices for audio. Again...don't get me wrong...it beats copying to cassette! ....but perfection this is not!!
I am going to buy a burner this week to compare for myself. All copies on CDR's (which my new Levinson will play, however, my old Muse separates would not) do NOT sound the same as original. I did not say that they sound bad, however, they are not as dynamic as the originals. I find it hard to believe that the $20 transport mechanism compares to the clocking technology and jitter reduction in the solid heavy transport of the levinson that I spent a load of money on. As audioheads have always said, "poop in gets poop out". In other words...the source is VERY important. How can a cheap plastic transport in a cd writer have the accuracy of the high end transport?? If I am wrong...then I need Mark Levinson's home address so that I can send hate mail!! ;) I also think that the discussion above is lacking information. Each of us burns (or wishes to burn) for different reasons. If for backup...for copying friends discs...for experimentation...for making mixes etc. We should also include associated equipment so that we can understand what you are listening "through". I have friends who "SWEAR" that MP3's sound "GREAT"...these are the same people with the Aiwa rack system who are listening to mp3's on $10 headphones. If I give my "bad" cdr copies to friends with run-of-the-mill systems...they can hear no tangible differences. Since I do not seek to be considered an audio "snob", I forgo the discussion with such people who are satisfied with nominal sound quality (but who are music lovers nontheless). I am a music lover and appreciate the ability to get as much as possible from my system. I found that it is very difficult (and expensive) to make digital sound like analog. Due to those that claim that there are NO DIFFERENCES I will spend the $$ and buy a burner and do more tests (worse comes to worse I need one for data backup) For now, however, I find it hard to believe that someome who could hear enough difference in sound to purchase mega-dollar CD players over the Aiwa 10 disc carousel does not hear the difference from originals to their CDR copies. I sincerely hope that I am wrong.
I gotcha KThomas....I understand. But...to be clear...I could not care less if the charted copies "look" identical. I only care how it sounds. If CDR's introduce jitter...or if the laser has a difficult time reading the colored surface I do not know....but thus far....I'll keep buying from the cd store. BUT....you all have provided enterainment for me...and for that....thank you. I gotta go...Best Buy is calling my name.
Kthomas...I think I follow you. BUT....in the realm of cd's...we have only had the pleasure of READING them. Now we are introducing the ability to write on them. Alongside our new found freedom to write on this digital medium we may introduce all kinds of crap (ie: jitter or dither). I mean c'mon...we all have done some crazy stuff to rid our systems of vibrations, dirty AC, and other invisible contaminates. Why would you find it hard to believe that my crappy homade computer with two cooling fans all running on the same skimpy power supply would be able to write bit for bit copies without introducing something that degrades the sound quality??? Don't get me wrong...I am VERY hopeful that the believers on this thread are correct! Based upon my innitial findings, however, I have heard differences that would force me to cough up $15 per disc as opposed to a lesser quality for $.80. For the car, the boat, the discman, for mix tapes for friends, for data backup YES. I have yet to find that the quality rivals the store bought. I want to know why this is. AND....yes I did purchase a CDburner today at Best Buy (and a handful of discs) and even more CDR blanks (bye the way...my bro says that the sony blanks sound hands down better than the others....go figure...he too notices a difference on a rather revealing system) So I will be giving it a try over the next many days. In addition...my brother (who lives halfway accross the country) purchased a Phillips Audio CD Burner (an actual audio component as opposed to a computer accessory) and we are going to do some "independent research". I'll call 'em as I see 'em when I hear it.
Yes...now everyone...are you recording onto CDR's???...or onto the audio format CD's which are made for the audio components (as opposed to computer burners) ????????????
Thanks...great response. Well....my brother (in LA..studio guy..and a reviewer for a high end mag) purchased the Phillips dual tray audio cd burner yesterday. He called me this am from cell phone and sounded like he just had an epiphany! Although he has had trouble with the sound quality from CDR's, he was impressed with the Phillips audio burner component. He claims that it is as close to a perfect duplicate as he has ever heard. He claimed that there is a bit of crisp harshness, that the vocals seem to not lay back behind the speakers as much as before, and lacked a bit of the air that the original had. He concluded that the audio burner was "damn close" to the original and is great for 99% of humanity. He originally planned to keep the Phillips only if it "made sonically perfect copies", however, he is considering keeping the unit because it is, "close enough" given the savings. He also said that the Phillips unit was built like a typical crappy low-fi electronics. He is going to have to send my some copies so that I can hear for myself, but I'm impressed.
Kthomas...I hear ya. I understand that when you "look" at the data bits they appear identical. I cannot tell you why, however, these same bits on CDR do not "sound" the same as the originals. There could not be any question of that when heard over my system. There have been valid possible reasons explained on this board...but we may not know the truth for some time. I do know that CDR's sound different than burned audio discs which sound different (slightly) from original. The degree of difference is entirely subjective (some say who cares and don't notice much degradation). I am someone who has spent a great deal of money and time to reach audio "nirvana"...as I'm sure many others on Audiogon have. I wish that I was satisfied with the CDR's....I could go back to a $200 sony cdp and be happy...NOT!
Yes...I've found that hardware makes a difference and that the discs make a difference. In general the CDR's take on a "hard" quailty. They sound unnatural, hard, bright, and metallic. I've found that the Sony CDR's remove alot of the bright metallic twinge and is a vast improvement. The audio recordable discs and equipment sounds considerably better than computer "burner" devices for audio. Again...don't get me wrong...it beats copying to cassette! ....but perfection this is not!!
well damn!....I just listened to a couple of my CDR's in their entirety....and they have a strange digital "skip" (for lack of a better word" on the last several tracks. I am copying to my hard drive (using Nero) and then burning to CDR. All first 3/4 of discs are fine ... then skip blurble skip blurble. This simply will not do.
what equipment?...you mean my computer burner?? Best buy...it is a simple HP $150 jobbie. I have spoken with several people who say that this is a somewhat common occurrence. Anyone else out there???
and to whom are you addressing your first post above Waldhorner??(3 posts prior to this one)