Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Sound Quality: burnt CD == original CD? (Read 15471 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Sound Quality: burnt CD == original CD?

Not sure if this is in the correct forum, but:

My car stereo installer got on a rant about MP3 (since that's what I was playing back through my system), cos he hates it. But he said something that I want to (hopefully) prove wrong:

He said that original CDs sound better than burnt CDs. I don't really believe this because with the combination of a quality home CD/DVD-R drive, high quality CD-Rs and good software like Exact Audio Copy, the data coming off the original CD is exactly the same as what's written to the burnt copy, correct? I mean, sure, if the original CD has a little trouble in reading then EAC will possibly dodgy up some bits here and there (not exactly sure how it works), but a few bits here and there amongst millions isn't going to be noticable by human perception (let alone read the same way by another CD drive if you were to recreate that CD).

Note: I'm talking ONLY about backing up CDs I own for use in my car so that originals do not get stolen!

Anyway, can anyone vouch one way or the other for this, with some backup? I've been doing some listening and I would think they are the same for all intents and purposes!

Sound Quality: burnt CD == original CD?

Reply #3 –
Quote
It's not exactly what you're looking for but i hope it helps;) (i don't believe it)

http://www.genesisloudspeakers.com/whitepa...20ver%203.1.pdf
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378948"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ugh. That whitepaper is the source of the infamous term "foot-tappity-ness", unless I'm mistaken. It's also based on lots of untrue information.

Sound Quality: burnt CD == original CD?

Reply #4 –
Quote
This link is an interesting read as well:

http://www.whathifi.com/newsMainTemplate.a...newssectionID=3
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378951"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

<sarcasm>I find it interesting how ignorant people can be.</sarcasm> Error correction and jitter don't affect sound the way those people might expect.

Sound Quality: burnt CD == original CD?

Reply #5 –
So... in summary, noone can say yes or no?

Sound Quality: burnt CD == original CD?

Reply #6 –
I think the PDF is junk. The other link brings up a valid point though: of course the better quality CD-R you use, the better quality the CD will be and less error correction when reading in a CDP, but I am skeptical how much difference having to correct a few bits here and there makes to the overall quality we preceive while listening. Most ppl can't tell the difference between the higher bitrate lossy formats, so I doubt anyone could tell the difference between a CD recorded perfectly and one which is doing a fair bit of error correction (of course there is a point when the CD will skip and not read correctly, but then that's another ballpark!)

Sound Quality: burnt CD == original CD?

Reply #7 –
Quote
He said that original CDs sound better than burnt CDs. I don't really believe this because with the combination of a quality home CD/DVD-R drive, high quality CD-Rs and good software like Exact Audio Copy, the data coming off the original CD is exactly the same as what's written to the burnt copy, correct?
....
Anyway, can anyone vouch one way or the other for this, with some backup? I've been doing some listening and I would think they are the same for all intents and purposes![{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you're only interested in whether the same bits come off the CDR copy, then [a href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.audio/browse_thread/thread/6da76eba439074e0/408a3ec01e54e179]this thread on the uk.rec.audio newsgroup[/url] might be of interest.

Some people will bring up another issue. There is some evidence that the task of reading a CDR and a CD will cause differing levels of servo activity, which may result in noise injection back into the system, possibly causing effects on downstream analogue circuitry.

FWIW, I have never noticed any audible difference between CDs and CDR copies.

Sound Quality: burnt CD == original CD?

Reply #8 –
Quote
So... in summary, noone can say yes or no?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378954"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



I can.  He's bullshitting you.  I am 100% sure than no one can ABX between the original and the burn, unless something went horribly wrong.

If you can burn a data CD and get the same data back off the CD-R, then you can do the same with audio.

Try it yourself.  Copy a CD, put the original in one drive and the copy in another.  Load up your media player, add the CDs to the playlist and randomise it.

Also, you just can't measure audio quality in a car.  It's totally the wrong type of environment, regardless of your system.

Sound Quality: burnt CD == original CD?

Reply #9 –
Its just simple mathematics. Explain it that way. Digital is digital and 000110 sounds exactly like 000110

Does a text file look different when you copy the same file ?

Sound Quality: burnt CD == original CD?

Reply #10 –
Quote
Quote
So... in summary, noone can say yes or no?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378954"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Also, you just can't measure audio quality in a car.  It's totally the wrong type of environment, regardless of your system.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378982"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yeah I know, it just happened to be my car audio installer that said this, which made me go "no way!" and hence want to find out. I'm sure my EQ is set crazy in the car just so I can hear certain frequencies over my exhaust

Sound Quality: burnt CD == original CD?

Reply #11 –
Quote
It's not exactly what you're looking for but i hope it helps;) (i don't believe it)

http://www.genesisloudspeakers.com/whitepa...20ver%203.1.pdf
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378948"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Interesting PDF. I followed it up until I read this part of the PDF. Page 6, section "2.2 Timing VS Data"

Quote
So, why are the copies seemingly identical? Well, firstly, the copies may not
be identical; they may just look identical as data. The computer does not
care when the data is read or written, just what data is read or written.

If the copies are not identical, they are not identical. A CD only contains binary data information. If the data is identical, the CD is identical. It is impossible for a CD containing 0101 in binary and another CD containing 0101 in binary to somehow not be identical. These two CDs are identical, they contain the same data. This is the crux of his arguement, and he is wrong.

Quote
The CD player/transport/DAC does a lot of buffering and error correction
as the music CD technology is inherently error prone (unlike data CD-ROM
technology which must be 100% accurate). So, theoretically, the error and
timing problems are fixed.
There is little difference between a CD-ROM and an Audio CD. The data layout may be different, but the same binary data exists on the CD. An Audio CD isn't magically different somehow, it has the same binary lands and pits that a CD-ROM has. If a CD, be it an Audio CD or CD-ROM, has errors, error correction will try to fix it. If the error correction works, it will restore what the original data was on the CD, not what the CD is a copy of.

Sound Quality: burnt CD == original CD?

Reply #12 –
This is a tricky issue. I have an audiophile friend who says he can hear the difference between a burned cd and a retail cd. His ears have be trained since a young age and he listens to music with high end gear. Is he full of shit? Maybe, maybe not. Audiophiles are trained to hear things most people don't know to listen for. They believe in abstract concepts that the average listener just doesn't care about. When I first heard about burned cds not sounding as good it seemed inherently retarded and I'm still not convinced. A fairly common audiophile product is feet for equipment that absorb vibration and many audiophiles claim it opens up soundstage. They reduce problems going on in digital processing or something. Just because I don't hear the difference doesn't mean it isn't there and just because they don't feel the need to ABX the vibration absorbing feet doesn't mean there isn't a difference.

I think a large amount of audiophile talk is BS from people justifying their purchases and I think that some people just hear better than I can and I want to believe they're full of BS because I can't afford the nice things they have. I haven't said anything concrete so feel free to ignore this post.

Sound Quality: burnt CD == original CD?

Reply #13 –
Quote
Not sure if this is in the correct forum, but:

My car stereo installer got on a rant about MP3 (since that's what I was playing back through my system), cos he hates it. But he said something that I want to (hopefully) prove wrong:

He said that original CDs sound better than burnt CDs. I don't really believe this because with the combination of a quality home CD/DVD-R drive, high quality CD-Rs and good software like Exact Audio Copy, the data coming off the original CD is exactly the same as what's written to the burnt copy, correct? I mean, sure, if the original CD has a little trouble in reading then EAC will possibly dodgy up some bits here and there (not exactly sure how it works), but a few bits here and there amongst millions isn't going to be noticable by human perception (let alone read the same way by another CD drive if you were to recreate that CD).

Note: I'm talking ONLY about backing up CDs I own for use in my car so that originals do not get stolen!

Anyway, can anyone vouch one way or the other for this, with some backup? I've been doing some listening and I would think they are the same for all intents and purposes!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=378935"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Ok how about doing this... take original CD and burn copy.  Then rip a WAV of the first track using EAC from both disks.  Compare the WAVs using the comparison feature of EAC.  Report on results.  If no difference then you have identical results.

There are errors that occur when burning and reading disks.  The presence of these errors does not make the disk invalid and most human ears cannot detect them.

Anyone know how the Nero verify test works and if that would suffice?

Sound Quality: burnt CD == original CD?

Reply #14 –
Quote
So, why are the copies seemingly identical? Well, firstly, the copies may not
be identical; they may just look identical as data. The computer does not
care when the data is read or written, just what data is read or written.
If the copies are not identical, they are not identical. A CD only contains binary data information. If the data is identical, the CD is identical. It is impossible for a CD containing 0101 in binary and another CD containing 0101 in binary to somehow not be identical. These two CDs are identical, they contain the same data. This is the crux of his arguement, and he is wrong.


Do not agree. Data on a CD is redundant (error correction):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc
Quote
The smallest entity in the CD audio format is called a frame. A frame can accommodate six complete 16-bit stereo samples, i.e. 2×2×6 = 24 bytes. Data in a CD-ROM are organized in both frames and sectors. A frame comprises 33 bytes, of which 24 are audio bytes (six full stereo samples), eight error correction, CIRC-generated, bytes plus one subcode byte. The eight bits of a subcode byte are available for control and display. In total we have 33*(14+3) = 561 channel bits. A 27-bit unique synchronization word is added, so that the number of channel bit in a frame totals 588. The synchronization word cannot occur in the normal bit stream, and can thus be used to identify the beginning of a frame.

Sound Quality: burnt CD == original CD?

Reply #15 –
Quote
Ok how about doing this... take original CD and burn copy.  Then rip a WAV of the first track using EAC from both disks.  Compare the WAVs using the comparison feature of EAC.  Report on results.  If no difference then you have identical results.

There are errors that occur when burning and reading disks.  The presence of these errors does not make the disk invalid and most human ears cannot detect them.

Anyone know how the Nero verify test works and if that would suffice?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=379041"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You should make sure that your offset for ripping and burning are correct for your drive.  Even if the audio ends up being the same, if the burned copy gets offset a few samples it'll report as eing completely different.

I've heard that it depends on the speed of which you burn CDs.  I don't know if this because burning software has to go through a different process of burning audio than data or something, but it's possible that in the process of writing audio to the disc that its not bit-perfect in favor of speed and processing (since it's not exactly data and it doesn't have to be perfect).

Sound Quality: burnt CD == original CD?

Reply #16 –
Quote
This is a tricky issue. I have an audiophile friend who says he can hear the difference between a burned cd and a retail cd. His ears have be trained since a young age and he listens to music with high end gear. Is he full of shit? Maybe, maybe not. Audiophiles are trained to hear things most people don't know to listen for. They believe in abstract concepts that the average listener just doesn't care about. When I first heard about burned cds not sounding as good it seemed inherently retarded and I'm still not convinced. A fairly common audiophile product is feet for equipment that absorb vibration and many audiophiles claim it opens up soundstage. They reduce problems going on in digital processing or something. Just because I don't hear the difference doesn't mean it isn't there and just because they don't feel the need to ABX the vibration absorbing feet doesn't mean there isn't a difference.

I think a large amount of audiophile talk is BS from people justifying their purchases and I think that some people just hear better than I can and I want to believe they're full of BS because I can't afford the nice things they have. I haven't said anything concrete so feel free to ignore this post.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=379032"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If the stuff that audiophiles "listen to" cannot be described in terms of amplitude, duration, and frequency, then they are not listening, but imagining.

Sound Quality: burnt CD == original CD?

Reply #17 –
A CD player without any buffering between the laser and the DAC might (in theory) be effected by differences in pit spacing (jitter).  However, this probably excludes CD players made after 1985 or not built during your EE401 lab.

Also, in theory, differing power needs for laser strength, motor spin speed, etc. might have a minor effect on an internal DAC, especially if the power circuit was poorly designed.  But wouldn't an 'audiophile' be using optical digital out anyway? (I am, on my $30 DVD/VCD/CD/MP3/WMA player

Personally, I wasn't able to tell if that 'white paper' was part of an elaborate joke or not. 

Sound Quality: burnt CD == original CD?

Reply #18 –
Quote
Quote
This is a tricky issue. I have an audiophile friend who says he can hear the difference between a burned cd and a retail cd. His ears have be trained since a young age and he listens to music with high end gear. Is he full of shit? Maybe, maybe not. Audiophiles are trained to hear things most people don't know to listen for. They believe in abstract concepts that the average listener just doesn't care about. When I first heard about burned cds not sounding as good it seemed inherently retarded and I'm still not convinced. A fairly common audiophile product is feet for equipment that absorb vibration and many audiophiles claim it opens up soundstage. They reduce problems going on in digital processing or something. Just because I don't hear the difference doesn't mean it isn't there and just because they don't feel the need to ABX the vibration absorbing feet doesn't mean there isn't a difference.

I think a large amount of audiophile talk is BS from people justifying their purchases and I think that some people just hear better than I can and I want to believe they're full of BS because I can't afford the nice things they have. I haven't said anything concrete so feel free to ignore this post.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=379032"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If the stuff that audiophiles "listen to" cannot be described in terms of amplitude, duration, and frequency, then they are not listening, but imagining.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=379063"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


When I first starting reading hydrogen audio I thought the Lame --r3mix preset was valid because I read on the r3mix site that the creator of the r3mix preset had done some research showing that it produced results closer to the orignal audio signal than other settings/encoders. People refuted that argument by saying that you listen to music, you don't look at graphs of it.

I think you'll have a hard time finding anyone to agree that listening comes down to terms of amplitude, duration, and frequency. I understand that those concepts are important/intersting to audio matters but in the end listening is interpreted by ears and the brain where those quantifications don't really matter.

Sound Quality: burnt CD == original CD?

Reply #19 –
Quote
I think you'll have a hard time finding anyone to agree that listening comes down to terms of amplitude, duration, and frequency. I understand that those concepts are important/intersting to audio matters but in the end listening is interpreted by ears and the brain where those quantifications don't really matter.


What you're listening to is a variation in frequency and amplitude over time.  Anything that has an audible difference can be expressed in these terms, or it is not audible.  Even if it's only +5% at 23kHz, it's still a quantifiable change.

And no, he won't have a hard time finding anyone who agrees with him.  Most people on this board do.

Sound Quality: burnt CD == original CD?

Reply #20 –
You're missing my point. There's nothing more to perception (edit: audio perception) than amplitude, duration, and frequency.

Sound Quality: burnt CD == original CD?

Reply #21 –
Just to defend the stereo car installer, he might have been talking about burnt copies out of bad quality mp3s. Several pirated copies sold over here are just like that, and yes, they sound like crap.

Sound Quality: burnt CD == original CD?

Reply #22 –
Reality check time: if this guy is so damned knowledgeable, why is he installing car radios for a living?  Have you asked yourself that?  Hello! 

As for these golden ears who can "hear differences" between burned and retail cd's, show us proof.  Do some ABX testing.  All these guys shun testing as they cannot validate their claims.

I know a guy who had a "golden ears" friend differentiate between a good MP3 and the original in a series of ABX tests.  When it was all over the tester told the "golden ears" that he played the same MP3 CD each time.  The golden ears has not spoken to him since.

Show us the proof!   
Nov schmoz kapop.

Sound Quality: burnt CD == original CD?

Reply #23 –
Quote
I know a guy who had a "golden ears" friend differentiate between a good MP3 and the original in a series of ABX tests.  When it was all over the tester told the "golden ears" that he played the same MP3 CD each time.  The golden ears has not spoken to him since.

Show us the proof!    
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=379084"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Dunno if that was directed at my previous post, but notice that I did say bad quality mp3 (with lots of warbling and ringing).

Sound Quality: burnt CD == original CD?

Reply #24 –
Quote
Ok how about doing this... take original CD and burn copy.  Then rip a WAV of the first track using EAC from both disks.  Compare the WAVs using the comparison feature of EAC.  Report on results.  If no difference then you have identical results.

There will be no difference in audio quality between originals and burned CDs IF the player can play both flawlessly.

The only difference here is the media quality.
The files can be identical in your system, but it may not be in another system.
You are probably using a good CD-ROM and EAC to extract the audio. But we are not talking about extract the audio; we are talking about playing the audio.
While you are playing this CD in the car you won’t have the heavy corrections routines that EAC has, and many car CD players don’t have the same quality that your computer CD-ROM has. So, this car CD player may play the original CD flawlessly, but it may have trouble with the burned CD.
muaddib