How cdrs sounds so good ?

Ozren>

I think I see what you're getting at. The simple should be that a CDR copy made using a PC is a direct digital to digital copy, and as such, does not have any data lost or corrupted (unlike analogue recording methods). Lets face it CDR back ups for computer software and data would be pretty rubbish if say 1% of it was corrupted along the way.

In reality, I believe that CDR copies made using a PC do NOT sound as good (at least on my system and using my own CDR). I find that they don't have quite as much life or bite to them. As data is not being lost, the only explanation that makes any sense is the introduction of "jitter", i.e. that the timing is slightly out.

Is low expectation the issue here , i.e. you were not expecting it to sound good and it wasnt so bad after all? A bit like getting my (very enjoyable)2nd system (Planar/ Nait/ Royds) and wondering why I had spent 20 times the cost of this on the main system (CDS2/52/500) until I went back to it

I have burnt CDRs on my PC and whilst I found 80 minute to be worse than 74 minute discs, as you say, they really are very good. However for serious listening on the CDS2 they are a definite step backward.

Why spend £x000 to upgrade CDX/XPS to CDS2 0r 82 to 52 or 140 to 250, etc and then downgrade it back again with copy discs?

Bosh !

I like originals more ofcourse, but really can't hear the difference between many copies and originals playing on my CD5. That is the fact and I can't see any downgrading, maybe you have some placebo effect.

Ozren

Allan

I agree with you, but could anyone read my first thread carefully and comment that technically.

Ozren

Hm - Ozren ! - No placebo, even the wife can clearly hear the difference!!!

Alan - been experimenting with the works writers (LG), discs and write speeds, a friends Philips hifi (!!) before I buy my own writer. Is it the black discs, the Plextor writer, the sound card, PC spec that gives the quality improvement you note?

Allan

I use black Traxdata, but can't say that are just better than original. Couldn't hear the difference.

Ozren

Thanks Alan - will try some black Memorex discs, do you use the normal data ones? Memorex see a bit harder to find, any good sources?

My LG/Nero in clinic will only read at 12x and burn no slower than 8x, will this be affecting performance?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Ball:
What happens is that, because the disk is made from black plastic, the laser cannot easily penetrate the data layer so you do not get timing errors because of unwanted reflections from the label side of the disk as it spins. There is also a reduction in light entering the side of the disk (albeit a small amount) which can also cause the laser to return incorrect information from the disk.
-A-

---

Alan,
Thanks for the post recommending the memorex disks, have to try them sometime.

I've been thinking about the issue of CDR quality ever since I started taking backups for use in the car, as I was confused as to why they sounded worse.

I can't say I'm wholy convinced by your arguement as being the real explanation.

There's a couple of points that I'd like to challenge:

1. Why would an unwanted reflection create a timing error?
It can't be the laser accepting the reflection as a genuine data reading, as it would then have too many data points.
One possibility is that the laser is adjusting to cater for the reflections using it's "error correction capabilities". Maybe this error correction takes a minute amount of time, which is just enough to cause jitter.
Thoughts?

2. You mention about a mis-reading returning incorrect information. Surely that would be a "corruption" of data. Again, I'd argue that for a CDR to be acceptable as a data storage medium, that for it to result in data corruption is simply not acceptable, and that it doesn't happen.

Please don't take my comments as a dig, as they're not meant that way. I'm challenging them, because they don't sound correct, and I'm still curious as to potential reasons for issues.

Ozren.

Back to your original question.

When a CD transport reads the information on a disc it is passed through resistors, transistors, capacitors in IC’s before it reaches the digital output. I suspect this information is reduced in value to a standard value to enable compatibility with a large number of DAC’s.
When this modified signal is transferred to the DAC it is now at a level that is sensitive to the type/quality of the cable.

When a CDR is made on a PC the information is transferred from the player to the recorder without the need reduce its value as no DAC is involved. The information is simply streamed from one to the other.

PS. I have just made this up, but some of it sounds feasible.

Thanks for all this advice Alan.

I'm still in a quandry whether to go stand alone or PC based though. Firstly, I'm concerned whether my 3 yr old PC (400MHz/128MB ram) will cope with copying and I dont want to change the box until I absolutely have to (what a pain to re-install all my software) and secondly I will have to invest in more than just a writer to archive LP12 and NAT02 output.

I'm delighted with my "cheap as chips" Phillips CDR because I want to record analogue sources as well as digital. The results I'm getting recording from vinyl on the CDR are superior to those I achieved on the PC by a very very large margin.
For straight digital CD copying without going near the sound card, the PC was ok, and of course the CDR won't take the black discs.
If a 149GBP recorder can sound this good with vinyl copies, I am now wondering what an expensive dedicated CDR could do.
malcolm

Wykid - thanks for this advice

Rockindoc / Alan - Any explanation for your vastly differing findings with PC CDRs

Rockindoc - I note your preference for Sugden recordings vs 52, how do 52 CDRs compare with 52 recordings? Did you try other than the Philips machines?

The difference is that the level of signal supplied to the record-out socket from the 52 when recording from vinyl is very low i.e. not much amplification of the catridge output after RIAA equalisation. The output voltage from the 52 with a moving coil cartridge is too low to allow optimum recording level on the CDR machine. This has been mentioned many times on the forum in the form of "why is my volume knob at 7 o'clock for CD replay and 12 o'clock for vinyl?"
Decent stand-alone phono-stages, like the Sugden Masterclass, provide more pre pre-amp amplification and therefore send more signal to the record-out sockets of the pre-amp.
I didn't try any other CDR machines because the new Phillips CDR600 was so cheap.
malcolm