CDR copies sounding great versus CD sounding pants

Posted by: Top Cat on 25 February 2002

I've been doing some CDR copying of some vinyl I have. The vinyl is in very good nick, and sounds great.

Why is it, then, that my el-cheapo CD player manages to convey almost all of the analogue sound that I hear when listening to the TT? I mean, it's a great TT and so I would expect the CDR copy to sound in some ways inferior. However, I'm surprised at how similar they do sound - almost to the point that I am beginning to question vinyl's superiority and question whether the thing that I like about vinyl is something euphonic in the sound of the deck and not something in the source material which CDs lack.

Anyone else chanced across this bizarre schizophrenic CD / LP->CDR behaviour?

TC '..'
"Girl, you thought he was a man, but he was a Muffin..."

Posted on: 25 February 2002 by Greg Beatty

Nociced a while ago that LP12->digital transfers were preferable to the packaged CD versions. Your logic about it possibly being down to the sound of the particular playback deck is something I hadn't considered.

OTOH, I find that vinyl played back on almost any deck (direct drive Technics included) has that certain something that is missing from packaged CDs. Its really neat (and encouraging?) that CDR captures most of this.

- GregB

Insert Witty Signature Line Here

Posted on: 25 February 2002 by Tim

quote:
Originally posted by Top Cat:
Why is it, then, that my el-cheapo CD player manages to convey almost all of the analogue sound that I hear when listening to the TT?

It is an interesting experiment. One implication, as you say, is that CD could sound just the same (or as good as) vinyl if mastered differently. However that's not my experience so far. I've tried recording vinyl to a high-quality DAT. I find that although it sounds very similar tonally, it is significantly inferior in other more subtle aspects. For example, I have both LP and CD of Paul Simon's Hearts and Bones. It is an interesting case, as this was digitally recorded in the studio (ie. a DDD release). However the LP sounds better; more three-dimensional, more space and drama, etc. I've also recorded the LP to DAT. The DAT still sounds good, but nevertheless a comparative listening test places it below the CD in quality. Which is what you would expect; the mystery is why the LP sounds better than the CD.

Having said that, there is a big issue over mastering. With older recordings, efforts to improve the sound by removing hiss and other artefacts often make it worse IMO. In addition, sometimes the best masters are lost or damaged. Excess processing can also spoil the sound of a modern recording. This is possibly why old recordings can sound so good, particularly of classical or folk music, where the sound is more natural than electronic.

I am still hoping to find a CD player so good, that I will no longer want to play LPs.

Tim

Posted on: 25 February 2002 by Top Cat

After all, I've had a full monty LP12, and now my current deck (Clearaudio, at least equal if not quite a bit better IMHO) and the chalk-and-cheese differences some speak of simply aren't there. Sure, vinyl still has the edge, but not by such a margin as I'd stake money on a double blind test.

Whoops, done it now... shouldn't have uttered that grimoire phrase...

TC '..'
"Girl, you thought he was a man, but he was a Muffin..."

Posted on: 25 February 2002 by Jez Quigley

I haven't had a TT for a long time now so I couldn't comment on vinyl>cdr but I remember being able to instantly recognise cassette tapes recorded from an LP12.

Sometimes cdr does sound better than the original cd, seemingly impossible and I couldn't even attempt to explain why.

Posted on: 26 February 2002 by Mike Sae

Where's the joy in re-inserting one's tape boards and re-burning an LP every time you upgrade carts or have a "good mains night"?

BTW, there's a DNM/Crimson distributor in Canada now so I'm looking forward to hearing these makes. Those Crimson monos are surprisingly affordable.

Not jumping ship any time soon,

mike

Posted on: 26 February 2002 by Chris Brandon

I recall reading an article not long ago stating that the life expectancy of most commonly available Cdr's is around 20-25 years,(something to do with the dye's ?)

IIRC (possibly not but along the lines of...),there is a type of cdr that has a reputed life expectancy of around 200-250 years (type 8 phythalocyanine based as opposed to more commonly cyanine based units ?)

(the above facts mat not be fully correct,but the gist is about right)

But,if you are looking at transfering lp's to cdr's for posterity,it may be worth noting and investigating futher

Regards

Chris

Posted on: 26 February 2002 by Top Cat

I had another critical comparison last night, and I decided that whilst the CDR copies are very similar on the surface to the LP originals, there is a subtle something which is lost - it's that 'tickle your ears' effect, that 'shiver up your spine' feeling... nevertheless, the CDR copies are good, very good, and I look forward to hearing how good they are through a CDS-II

TC '..'
"Girl, you thought he was a man, but he was a Muffin..."

Posted on: 26 February 2002 by Matthew T

Data on CDs is set-up so that errors (or omissions) in the data can be corrected before the signal is converted to analogue. However the more errors in the signal the less likely the digital hardware will be able to correct them. So when you make a copy of a CD on a CDrom/burner the data is read and errors are corrected and then burnt without errors. So when you come to replay you have a less error full CD. Now, the average mass produced CD, including all packaging weighs in a a tender 28p for manufacturing (that is full cost) or some such low figure, well below the cost of a cassette or LP, not enough to ensure a high quality and consistant recording one would expect whereas a CDR has CDs with possibly more accurate 'grooves' should allow for better recording. This ultiamtely means a CD copy should present less work to the CD player to retreive the signal and correct any errors and therefore give a better digital signal into the DAC.

Aside - supposedly you can drill a hole in a CD and it will still be able to operate, never tried although there are a few disks I have that would be to big a loss!

cheers

Matthew

Posted on: 26 February 2002 by Top Cat

But the original question was really concerned with vinyl CDR copies compared to the original. Sure, there's a loss, but it's a lot less than one would expect. Can't vouch for CD->CDR copies, haven't done that many of them.

TC '..'
"Girl, you thought he was a man, but he was a Muffin..."

Posted on: 26 February 2002 by Paul Ranson

The obvious reason why you may prefer a CDR of an LP to a CD of the same material is that you like the processing the mastering house has to do to make the vinyl work, and the distortion caused by the transfer to and from vinyl.

Nothing wrong with that!

Paul

Posted on: 27 February 2002 by JohanR

Jez wrote:

"I haven't had a TT for a long time now so I couldn't comment on vinyl>cdr but I remember being able to instantly recognise cassette tapes recorded from an LP12."

After I had bought the LP12 in the mid 1980:s my brother (who can't stand vinyl, he can always hear the "dragging sound") travelled with me in my car. The car stereo was playing a casette and he commented on how good it sounded, it must be from a CD. Well, it was recorded from one of his own LP:s (unplayable according to him when I borrowed it)! He just didn't know how good a LP12 sounds.
Nowadays I use CD:s in the car and never get a comment on how good it sounds!

Interesting this copying stuff.

JohanR

Posted on: 27 February 2002 by Andy S

For those that want to find out whay CD copies generally sound worse than the originals, you should find a good discourse on jitter. On a reasonably high-end system it is relatively easy to tell which is a copy vs the original (copy tends to be less focused, particularly in the treble, and has a slightly depressed "feel" to it). Specifically, worse sound is NOT due to errors on the disk.

As for vinyl->CDRs, there are a wealth of quality problems which will get in the way (how good is the A/D conversion on the sound card for example, let alone how much jitter is introduced) which will give "reasonable" sound on some systems but will be woefully inadequate for others.

Posted on: 27 February 2002 by Top Cat

If a CDS-II/XPS replaying the copies will reveal the copies as poor imitations of the original vinyl, although I have so far been quite surprised...

TC '..'
"Girl, you thought he was a man, but he was a Muffin..."

Posted on: 28 February 2002 by Tim

quote:
Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
The obvious reason why you may prefer a CDR of an LP to a CD of the same material is that you like the processing the mastering house has to do to make the vinyl work, and the distortion caused by the transfer to and from vinyl.Paul

If you mean that better mastering can override any other media differences, I agree. If you mean that those who appreciate vinyl like the distortion it introduces, I disagree. It's a good theory, but I don't think it bears analysis. Particularly interesting now that many vinyl lovers say SACD or DVDA comes closer to or even bests vinyl - yet clearly these lack the supposedly beneficial distortion.

Tim

Posted on: 28 February 2002 by Martin M

My experience is that most CD players now tend to 'sound' OK. The screaming treble and lack of bass of early CD players in mainly a thing of the past. The main differences between players is the 'yawn-factor' involved. Less less impressive the player the more boring it is. So, TC I'm not surprised that CD-R retains the tonality of vinyl, but partially trashes the musicality.

quote:
For example, I have both LP and CD of Paul Simon's Hearts and Bones. It is an interesting case, as this was digitally recorded in the studio

So do I, I think CD wipes the floor with the LP. Probably a system & taste thing. Although this is not always the case. I love this story - in CD's early days 1983 - Donald Fagen's The Nightfly was released on CD. The Nightfly like Hearts & Bones is a 3M 32 track digital recording. Late one night, The Nightfly's engineer (Roger Nichols) receives a phone call from Stevie Wonder (of all people) telling him Donald's CD sounds 'funny' and what was the matter. Roger investigated and found that the first Nighfly CD had been mastered from a 3rd generation analogue dub of the digital master tape. Roger and Donald hit the roof and Warners remastered it. I am told this was not an isolated incident.

quote:
there is a type of cdr that has a reputed life expectancy of around 200-250 years (type 8 phythalocyanine based as opposed to more commonly cyanine based units ?)

Yes, these are being used for archival copies of master tapes. The disc will easily outlast the tape.

quote:
This ultiamtely means a CD copy should present less work to the CD player to retreive the signal and correct any errors and therefore give a better digital signal into the DAC.

To the best of my knowledge I do not have a single CD that the errors are so bad that the RS FEC is defeated and data interpolation is required. This is also a part of the CD standard that the pressing plant is required to meet, so I don't this is untypical.

I suppose the real question is the vinyl replay chain from tape to speaker cleaner than the CD one. I doubt it myself.

quote:
many vinyl lovers say SACD or DVDA comes closer to or even bests vinyl

I've done the dem of SACD vs CD. I prefered the CD, it was less boring. Probably a harware problem. Bear in mind that SACD has less resolution in the treble than CD - the comparison is not a cu and dried as it first appear or would Sony would like it to appear. DVD-A is another kettle of fish, but so far the lack of music and decent harware make this a non-starter in my opinion.

Drivel mode off....

Posted on: 28 February 2002 by Paul Ranson

quote:
Particularly interesting now that many vinyl lovers say SACD or DVDA comes closer to or even bests vinyl -

I'm not aware that there's yet any basis on which 'ordinary' consumers can make this comparison.

quote:
yet clearly these lack the supposedly beneficial distortion.

I don't consider the distortion endemic on LP playback to be 'beneficial'.

Paul

Posted on: 28 February 2002 by Tim

quote:
Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
I'm not aware that there's yet any basis on which 'ordinary' consumers can make this comparison.Paul

Well, you can do what you do with any hi-fi: listen. At a dealer, or home dem, or even purchase. SACD is probably worth it just to hear the best mix of Blonde on Blonde (which isn't available on any other format).

quote:
I don't consider the distortion endemic on LP playback to be 'beneficial'.

Nor do I. But you thought TC might "like" it. All things are possible; personally I regard this as an unlikely reason for anyone preferring LP to CD.

Tim

Posted on: 28 February 2002 by Tim

quote:
Originally posted by Martin M:
I think CD wipes the floor with the LP. Probably a system & taste thing.

Could be. Could be that we value different aspects of sound reproduction. Could be that we have different LP or CD pressings using different masters. All sorts of possibilities.

I do have CDs that "wipe the floor" with equivalent LPs. Sondheim's Company is a recent example. Probably uses a much better master. Unfortunately, in my experience the reverse is more often true.

Tim