Copying CD's

The rest of the system is a (temporary) 32.5, supercap, passive 135s, an 02 and sbls. The rest of the rig is on a mana 6-tier, the sbls on mana platforms.

The trouble is this. When I want to record I remove the CDS from the Phase 3 and put my 765 on the Phase 3 instead. The 765 is allowed to warm up, to which end, discs are played on both the play and the record side.

Before recording, the source and copy discs are washed, dried, given the bedini ultra-clarifier treatment and finally 1 statmat per disc before recording. So it is a meticulous process, though not fanatical, if you know what I mean. And recordings are done only when the least number of appliances in the house and (presumably) neighbourhood are turned on, my separate spur notwithstanding.

I'd expect damn good recordings - which is to say I don't get them.

I experienced a lack of interest when playing back a copy, which I put down to poor timing qualities of the recorded disc, plus some rawness.

So essentially, I am just wondering if the problem is in the recording side - could it be the recording side is not run-in enough? did you have initially the same results? I've recorded maybe 4 hours worth of music, tops. The lack of interest I experience also occurs when I monitor the playback via headphones - the Sennheiser HD600 is pretty useful.

Thanks in advance,

Vik

I find that sometimes there is a adifference in volume between copy and source Cd. I find it amazing because all the data in CD is a digital data and this includes the "instructions" about
the level of volume. If there is a different in volume there must be a different in other factors - but how? As a programmer I know that if
you copy a digital data from one media to another - as for the didgital matters the data is the same - but how can it differ when we use it
with our Cd players.

Most of my friends who have a standart stereo systems are claiming at me that there is no differences at all. But we with our better equipment feel differences.

Maybe it is because of the different in depth of the copied data on cd comapres with depth of data
on the original - if it is how can it be ?

If there is a difference, I'm sure all the music
companies at the world should shout it loud and prove that copied discs are inferior to the
original - so if there is a different how comes they are sitting silently ?

Maybe something wrong with our ears ?

Arie

the copies aren't a patch on the originals.

Used with a CDX they reduce the performance of the player to much less than a 10 year old Arcam two-box.

cheers, Martin

But as I see most of us feel that the copied one is not like the original and I realy want to understand how it comes - it is a wonder for me.

Comapring on a computer the copied one is the same as the original.

Arie

I'd thought to use green ink on the edges too. While it would've helped recordings it would've sounded dead on the Naims.

This tweak had served me well from the Meridien MCD (remember that?) onwards till I bought my first Naim CDP. After which I spent many annoying evenings removing it all.

I can't remember if it was this process that affirmed in me that EVERYBODY ELSE was Flat Earth, and Naim was Round AND green.

Best
Vik

About the cows, I don't remember when I saw one... I live in Haifa which is a city (the third in number of population in Israel and the first in industrial areas).
In Israel - as the sea shore goes from North to South, Haifa lies on a mountain (Carmel mounatain but we have no connection with Clint Estwood) that goes from East to West and reaches the sea. The mountain is 1500 feet high - and there is a wonderful view here - many people and tourists claim this is one of the most beatiful cities in the world.

I have milk from the supermarket nearby my home...

Tomorrow we have a holiday here ROSH HASHANA which
means "Year's head" and this is the beginig of our new year - we celebrate this holiday but we live our life according to the Georgian calander.

That's something about life here - I hope it is not boring.

Arie

[This message was edited by Arie_Gur on THURSDAY 28 September 2000 at 17:08.]

The best method is is via a PC. Don't use the cheapo blanks. Traxdata and TDK are OK. Don't buy the ones marked 'audio' they include a rake off to the phono industry but don't sound any better. Use a good quality cd -writer - the best is Plextor although Sony are close. Use good CD mastering software like WinOnCD or Nero- I don't like the results from Adaptec. Contrary to popular belief recording in real time is worse, not better. This is because modern writers will over-cook the pits at such a low speed. Try 2 or even 4 speed. Vuk is again expressing views about something which he clearly has little knowledge. I find that SOME copies sound even better than the original, possibly because the PC extracts the digital code and lays it down on a nice pristine surface that the CD player can read with less error correction. The bottom line is that if you follow the above, most of your copies will be just as good as the originals, even on 'superior' systems. (I've tried them on a Linn Karik, Ikemi & Genki, and my friend's Meridian)

Thanks,
Arie

Regards P.

Arie

I've been trying to find out why for a number of years now - I've tried different CD writers, software and discs.

I am veering strongly towards the opinion that the discs and/or the physics of the writing process is the primary source of the differences.

The blank CDR disc has a track manufactured onto the disc, that is used to guide the laser, and more importantly I believe, to provide timing information.

There is a sinusoidal 'wobble' on this track, at a frequency of 22.05kHz (1/2 of the CD sample rate), that is used to control the disc's rotational velocity. I assume it is used to control a PLL to keep the disc spinning at the correct speed. Errors in this track, and poor PLL performance would impact sound quality dramatically.

Additionally, the time taken for the recording dye to change state when being written to by the laser could also introduce timing jitter.

My belief is the above would produce the type of sound I'm hearing from the copied CD's, i.e. poor rythm and timing, missing low-level detail and a generally harsh unpleasant sound. This is exactly the effect I get if I introduce more jitter into the master clock in my CD player.

I have noticed that some manufacturers (e.g. Philips) are advertising some CDR discs as 'low jitter' I will try some and see if there are any differences.

Andy.

Andrew L. Weekes
alweekes@audiophile.com

aaa101 said:
>> I find that SOME copies sound even better than the original, possibly because the PC extracts the digital code and lays it down on a nice pristine surface that the CD player can read with less error correction <<

Although in most cases copies sound at best marginally worse I've heard other people claim improvements as well. There are theories that copying provides some kind of de-jittering effect, or that a new copy allows the player to read the CD more realiably and the consequent reduction in movement of the laser reduces noise from the servos and so reduces noise in the analogue stage of the CD player. However noise correction is definitely not a factor as 99% of the time error correction has no effect on sound quality.

Matthew

The best ones tend to keep the A to D converters away from the PC - i.e have a break out box which connects to the PC via a card.

There is lots of information on digitizing sound on the Sound On Sound Website(which is a magazine for digital musicans. They also have lots of reviews etc.

If you've got a fairly new PC with a USB port then the EGO-Sys Waveterminal U2A features high quality 24bit DACs and is good value at approx $270 USD. Details are on thier web site (Note that if it asks you to install a Korean language pack say no as the site is in English).

Otherwise the pro market leader for many years is the Digital Audio CardDeluxe at approx $500 USD.

Sorry I don't have UK prices although you can either buy over the WEB or a trip to Tottenham Court Rd a a bit a haggling should result in a decent UK price.

Matthew

quote:

---

I've found that the quality of a duplicated audio disc depends mainly on the software and the settings used to duplicate it.

---

I've used discjuggler - it is very easy to use, but works no better than any other option I've tried.

quote:

---

The problem with CD audio is that you will get different data from every disc each time you read it due to the lack of error control.

---

Not strictly true - it is due to the lack of resolution in the timing information on an audio CD, and is only ever a problem if data cannot be streamed from the disc (i.e. your hard drive cannot keep up with the data rate from your CD, or your PC suddenly becomes 'busy'). It is then not possible for the laser to be accurately positioned when reading starts again - this is the reason for the redundant read options in many CD writing packages (e.g. Discjuggler).

I can extract the same Audio CD multiple times, using different programs, and get exactly the same audio data, bit-compared, on the hard drive. The only difference is an offset introduced by some software.

The recorded results though are always unlistenable through the Hi-Fi. They might be alright for a car system though

Andy.

Andrew L. Weekes
alweekes@audiophile.com

However, I’d like to take a step back and look at the expectations people have from CDR.
I like to make compilations from my CD’s for my own use in the home. I have done this for years using cassette tapes, that’s why I bought a Nakamichi tape deck. Now I do the copying using my PC to CDR, and the tape deck doesn’t get used much anymore. I have always accepted that when copying to cassette I will ‘lose something’ when compared to the original. But I have still enjoyed playing my tapes. In my experience I get much better copies using my PC to a CDR than I do copying to a tape using my tape deck. This makes it more than acceptable for me.

When judging the overall quality of a CDR please try to remember that it is a COPY.
If you’re copying CD’s or LP’s to CDR and you’re not happy because it doesn’t sound like the original, set your standards as you would have done if you were copying to cassette, or BUY THE ORIGINAL.

Brian

quote:

---

When judging the overall quality of a CDR please try to remember that it is a COPY.
If you’re copying CD’s or LP’s to CDR and you’re not happy because it doesn’t sound like the original, set your standards as you would have done if you were copying to cassette, or BUY THE ORIGINAL.

---

I always do - I find though, that copies to my tape deck, in spite of being noisier and having a more limited frequency and dynamic range, still sound more musical than the CD copies!

Andy

Andrew L. Weekes
alweekes@audiophile.com

"FWIW Nero seems to be the very popular with musicians for use in home/project studios which possibly says something about its audio quality. "

I think musicians are the last to listen to while talking about listening to music at home.
I heard musician on TV and radio, I read their
opinion on papers - and I think many of them have no idea about sound quality at "in house listening" I even think many of them have worse
knowladge of the subject.
People learn music at the university to the highest degrees and no one teaches them how to listen to music at home. The analyze compliated
classical music out of poor tapes....
I think we are lucky that those who are planing and manufacturing our stereo systems are "music
lovers" and not musicians...

Bri and Andrew,

Copying music to tapes with my old Akai gx7 gives
better "similarity" to source then copied Cd's,
not mention the convenience in copying LP's.

Omer,

I'm relieved now.....