Stand alone CDR: less than perfect quality copies ?
Tom Pohorsky
copies I've gotten from a friend with a Stand-alone unit didn't
sound identical to the master. I actually setup a double blind
test and was able to detect the copy (the high's were a tiny bit
rougher). I'm pretty confident this is not a jitter problem,
as I was actually able to hear it, though subtly.
Another friend had the same experience in a single
blind test, and said this was allegedly an intentional copy
discouragement "feature" of this stand alone unit (Marantz ?).
Has anyone heard of such a feature ? Is it broadly deployed ?
Thanks,
Tom.
--
- Tom Pohorsky tomp at Netcom dot com
Mzacharias
Mark Z.
>Subject: Stand alone CDR: less than perfect quality copies ?
>From: to...@netcom.com (Tom Pohorsky)
>Date: Tue, 28 December 1999 04:36 PM EST
>Message-id: <84bag5$14j$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>
Mike NO UCE S.
Tom Pohorsky <to...@netcom.com> wrote:
>I've been having great luck with an IDE CD-R. But a couple of
>copies I've gotten from a friend with a Stand-alone unit didn't
>sound identical to the master. I actually setup a double blind
>test and was able to detect the copy (the high's were a tiny bit
>rougher). I'm pretty confident this is not a jitter problem,
>as I was actually able to hear it, though subtly.
Some inexpensive audio burners route all digital input through a sampling
rate converter which might produce audible degradation. Perhaps the
difference you hear is related to jitter, or to incompatible or poor
quality media causing unusually high error rates during playback.
>Another friend had the same experience in a single
>blind test, and said this was allegedly an intentional copy
>discouragement "feature" of this stand alone unit (Marantz ?).
Consumer grade digital audio recording equipment employs SCMS (Serial Copy
Management System). This involves copy protection bits in the digital
subcode (inaudible and having no effect on audio quality) which work with
recorder firmware to disable recording when a digital copy is attempted
from a digital copy.
>Has anyone heard of such a feature ?
See above.
>Is it broadly deployed ?
It is universally deployed, and completely unrelated to sound quality.
swoo...@my-deja.com
to...@netcom.com (Tom Pohorsky) wrote:
> I've been having great luck with an IDE CD-R. But a couple of
> copies I've gotten from a friend with a Stand-alone unit didn't
> sound identical to the master. I actually setup a double blind
> test and was able to detect the copy (the high's were a tiny bit
> rougher). I'm pretty confident this is not a jitter problem,
> as I was actually able to hear it, though subtly.
>
> blind test, and said this was allegedly an intentional copy
> discouragement "feature" of this stand alone unit (Marantz ?).
>
>
> Thanks,
> Tom.
> --
> - Tom Pohorsky tomp at Netcom dot com
>
In my experience, different brand CDR writers have varying degrees of
success copying CD-Audio discs. I believe Golden Hawk CDR-Win has a
test mode that actually measures the ability of the CDR writer to copy
an audio disc by comparing the original data to the copied and
expressing that as a percentage of the original. Maybe this would
explain the difference in sound?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
EKIM
to...@netcom.com (Tom Pohorsky) wrote:
> I've been having great luck with an IDE CD-R. But a couple of
> copies I've gotten from a friend with a Stand-alone unit didn't
> sound identical to the master. I actually setup a double blind
> test and was able to detect the copy (the high's were a tiny bit
> rougher). I'm pretty confident this is not a jitter problem,
> as I was actually able to hear it, though subtly.
But it very well may be jitter.....the reflective surface of different
blanks are what could be the problem, NOT THE DATA! I've compared many
different blanks..blue,green, yellow, gold, silver......Silver always
sounds closest or maybe even better than original. the Blue or green
blanks kinda suck for audio. Some gold are excellent.
>
> Another friend had the same experience in a single
> blind test, and said this was allegedly an intentional copy
> discouragement "feature" of this stand alone unit (Marantz ?).
Defeating copying altogether ? SCMS or sound degredation by way of
hidden bit stripping? doubt it....if it goes through some sort of
processing rather than a CD-R DUPE, then yes, there definitley could be
degredation.
Crestman
Tom Pohorsky
>In article <84bag5$14j$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>,
> to...@netcom.com (Tom Pohorsky) wrote:
>> I've been having great luck with an IDE CD-R. But a couple of
>> copies I've gotten from a friend with a Stand-alone unit didn't
>> sound identical to the master. I actually setup a double blind
>> test and was able to detect the copy (the high's were a tiny bit
>> rougher). I'm pretty confident this is not a jitter problem,
>> as I was actually able to hear it, though subtly.
>
>But it very well may be jitter.....the reflective surface of different
>blanks are what could be the problem, NOT THE DATA! I've compared many
>different blanks..blue,green, yellow, gold, silver......Silver always
>sounds closest or maybe even better than original. the Blue or green
>blanks kinda suck for audio. Some gold are excellent.
Any particular favorite brand for audio ? I've been happy with Maxell
and TDKs (gold and blue/green, respectively), though I haven't done any
listening tests per color. I've appended something gleaned from
comp.periphs.cdr below, though I think it's more based on BER than
analog issues like jitter.
>> Another friend had the same experience in a single
>> blind test, and said this was allegedly an intentional copy
>> discouragement "feature" of this stand alone unit (Marantz ?).
>
>Defeating copying altogether ? SCMS or sound degredation by way of
>hidden bit stripping? doubt it....if it goes through some sort of
>processing rather than a CD-R DUPE, then yes, there definitley could be
>degredation.
It's a subtle sound degradation. I noticed it (barely) in the highs,
though that's the only aspect I was following, to try to simplify the
blind test. In hindsight, although the person making the copies said/
thought it was a digital copy, I guess it was probably an analog conversion
issue. No one has responded with anything on a digital-domain quality
reduction, so I'll assume such a "feature" does not exist.
Here's that CDR info, reprinted w/o permission because it was posted
to USENET,
Tom.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 20:52:33 -0800
From: Robbie Dunn <goh...@MINDSPRING.COM>
Subject: CD-R's ... the good, the bad & the ugly
.............. forwarded article .........................
At the moment there is alot of talk about which is the best CD-R Media on
the market today. Usually people are talking of a certain CD brand being
the best but they should tell you which is the best factory manufacturing
these CD-R's.
There are at the moment around 200 different CD-R brands on the market but
there are ONLY about 16 manufacturers making all these CD-R's. So when
buying CD-R's it's wise to check the factory where they are from,
especially with the flood of Noname CD-R's which are usually of lesser
quality as they have to be cheap.
Keep in mind that some CD Brands tend to change factory once in a while.
CD Factories
*The most common factories of quality CD-R's are:
Mitsui Chemicals (Mitsui, HP, Philips)
Taiyo Yuden Company Limited (Taiyo Yuden, 3M, Sony, Philips, Imation)
TDK Corporation (TDK, 3M, Pioneer, Yamaha)
Kodak Japan Limited (Kodak, BASF)
Ricoh Company (Ricoh, KAO)
Mitsubishi Chemicals Corporation (Verbatim, Traxdata)
Pioneer Video Corporation (Pioneer)
*factories of medium quality CD-R's:
Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. (Maxell)
Fuji Photo Film Co, Ltd (FujiFilm)
*factories of low (=cheaper) quality CD-R's:
Princo Corporation (Princo)
Gigastorage Corporation (Gigastorage)
Lead Data Inc. (Lead Data, Targa, Lenco)
Fornet International Pte Ltd.
CDA Dateträger Albrechts GmbH (CDA, FNAC)
Ritek Co. (Arita, BASF, Samsung, Memorex, Targa, Rimax, Traxdata)
CMC Magnetics Corporation
About 95% of the Noname CD-R's are made in these lesser quality CD
factories.
taiyo yuden makes great discs - hell - they were the first to ever
manufactur cd-r media after all and still make oem product for sony, tdk,
memorex, and a hole slew of others.
................. end of forwarded article ....................
EKIM
to...@netcom.com (Tom Pohorsky) wrote:
> In article <84gn8i$9j4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EKIM <eki...@juno.com>
wrote:
> >In article <84bag5$14j$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > to...@netcom.com (Tom Pohorsky) wrote:
> >> I've been having great luck with an IDE CD-R. But a couple of
> >> copies I've gotten from a friend with a Stand-alone unit didn't
> >> sound identical to the master. I actually setup a double blind
> >> test and was able to detect the copy (the high's were a tiny bit
> >> rougher). I'm pretty confident this is not a jitter problem,
> >> as I was actually able to hear it, though subtly.
> >
> >But it very well may be jitter.....the reflective surface of
different
> >blanks are what could be the problem, NOT THE DATA! I've compared
many
> >different blanks..blue,green, yellow, gold, silver......Silver always
> >sounds closest or maybe even better than original. the Blue or green
> >blanks kinda suck for audio. Some gold are excellent.
>
> Any particular favorite brand for audio ?
I like Mitsui Silvers....these seem closest to original CD in terms of
sound and most importantly they are 100$ compatible with all players I
have. Maxell golds work well too.
I've been happy with Maxell
> and TDKs (gold and blue/green, respectively), though I haven't done
any
> listening tests per color. I've appended something gleaned from
> comp.periphs.cdr below, though I think it's more based on BER than
> analog issues like jitter.
>
> >> Another friend had the same experience in a single
> >> blind test, and said this was allegedly an intentional copy
> >> discouragement "feature" of this stand alone unit (Marantz ?).
> >
> >Defeating copying altogether ? SCMS or sound degredation by way
of
> >hidden bit stripping? doubt it....if it goes through some sort of
> >processing rather than a CD-R DUPE, then yes, there definitley could
be
> >degredation.
>
> It's a subtle sound degradation. I noticed it (barely) in the highs,
> though that's the only aspect I was following, to try to simplify the
> blind test. In hindsight, although the person making the copies said/
> thought it was a digital copy, I guess it was probably an analog
conversion
> issue. No one has responded with anything on a digital-domain quality
> reduction, so I'll assume such a "feature" does not exist.
The 'edgyness' is most evident in the highs, but it seems to be a
product of constrained dynamics......this is fairly evident when
comparing original to copy with more larger scale, dynamic types of
music with voice.
>
> Here's that CDR info, reprinted w/o permission because it was posted
> to USENET,
> Tom.
Thanks for the CDR info. It makes lots of sense actually. IMO there's
nothing wrong with using the absolute cheapest blank for data as long as
it is reliable though.
Brian L. McCarty
eloquent_...@hotmail.com wrote on 31/12/99 16:44:
>
> I've yet to hear a CDR copy that sound AS GOOD as the master source. With
> CD burners, there's the ECC problem. Has anyone verified if using proper
> 'offsets' in Exact Audio Copy produce exact copies. This seems to be the
> only hope. With standalones, there are too many issues, perhaps coax vs.
> optical cables, higher jitter than comp. burners
This is a lot of hooey. CD-R's are used to copy DATA; if computer data is
corrupted you end up with a program that won't run. Claiming that there are
"sound" problems with CD-R copies is just plain lunacy.
Numerous published tests have written audio data unto CD-R's, and then used
a computer to compare the data. NOTHING to indicate that any difference
exists, or that different colour blanks perform differently, etc.
More audiophile nonsense, now infesting the computer world. Much like the
idea of "monster cable" for USB keyboard cables. Bwahahahahah!
>
> Not only the high end but also less transparency and slightly more 'grain'
> especially through headphones/earphones.
Not possible. Get an education, sport.
---
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) is a proven:
Zipser is a liar http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=369217967
Zipser is a scammer http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=368363274
Zipser is a cheater http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=374900703
Zipser is a THIEF http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=509980240
Arny Krüger
"Tom Pohorsky" <to...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:84gsog$ae9$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
> *factories of low (=cheaper) quality CD-R's:
> Princo Corporation (Princo)
My procedure for "qualifying" a CD-R to recommend to my clients is
to run off some test discs on Princo media and see if the audio
reads reliably and bit-perfect.
Arny Krüger
"EQ" <eloquent_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3hYa4.1196$B6....@quark.idirect.com...
>
> Tom Pohorsky <to...@netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:84gsog$ae9$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
<eki...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >In article <84bag5$14j$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > > to...@netcom.com (Tom Pohorsky) wrote:
> > >> I've been having great luck with an IDE CD-R. But a couple
of
> > >> copies I've gotten from a friend with a Stand-alone unit
didn't
> > >> sound identical to the master. I actually setup a double
blind
> > >> test and was able to detect the copy (the high's were a tiny
bit
> > >> rougher). I'm pretty confident this is not a jitter problem,
> > >> as I was actually able to hear it, though subtly.
>
source.
Blind tests, anyone?
> With CD burners, there's the ECC problem.
Hmm, it works and corrects data with reasonable numbers of errors
back to the precise original data. You call this a "problem"?
> Has anyone verified if using proper
> 'offsets' in Exact Audio Copy produce exact copies.
Sure, many times. Exact copies are possible, but it takes 2 things:
(1) A good CD-R drive to write the disc.
(2) A good CDROM to read the disc reliably.
(1) and (2) can be the same drive, particularly if the drive is made
by Plexstor.
IMO, EAC is "pickier" than necessary, however because it complains
if the number of zero bytes at the start and end of the track are
right. Who really cares if there is 2.0000 or 2.0000 or 1.9999
seconds of digital silence between the tracks?
AudioGrabber checksums are good enough for audio.
>This seems to be the
> only hope. With standalones, there are too many issues, perhaps
coax vs.
> optical cables, higher jitter than comp. burners
The digital outputs on the standalone readers I've tested are
nothing to write home about, either.
> > >But it very well may be jitter.....the reflective surface of
different
> > >blanks are what could be the problem, NOT THE DATA! I've
compared many
> > >different blanks..blue,green, yellow, gold, silver......Silver
always
> > >sounds closest or maybe even better than original. the Blue or
green
> > >blanks kinda suck for audio. Some gold are excellent.
>
> The Verbatim blues sound the best to Gramophone in the UK.
My test for CD writers is to grab some Princo discs - absolute
bottom of the pile, in most people's book. And I don't use just any
Princo discs, I use the cheapest bulk-packed drek I can find.
I then burn up some discs with test tones.
I check the tracks for digital accuacy vis-a-vis the original files
they were burned from with AudioGrabber.
I put the CD's on a cheap CD player and test the recovered audio for
general technical quality, using tests like those posted at
http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/ . If the player performs like it
should, particularly in the jitter test, then I consider the CD-R to
be "acceptable". I also test on a "good" CD player. Same criteria
apply.
Then I take the CD's down to my main system and listen to them. I do
things in this order only because all the testing stuff is on the
same floor as the place where I assemble machines.
smi...@my-deja.com
> This is a lot of hooey. CD-R's are used to copy DATA; if computer data
is
> corrupted you end up with a program that won't run.
Not all true. All depends on the level of corruption. If you knew
anything about CD-R blanks used for audio, you'd already know that there
are widely known compatibility issues with blanks that use different
colored dyes on the data surface. Many perfectly functioning cd
players simply will not play some cd-r audio discs that are not either
silver or gold, or just silver, yet they play perfectly fine on others.
Claiming that
there are
> "sound" problems with CD-R copies is just plain lunacy.
I doubt you even own a Cd-R recorder and you own Bose schpeakers, right?
>
BULLSHIT SNIPPED
NOTHING to indicate that any
difference
> exists, or that different colour blanks perform differently, etc.
Even most ,if not all manufactures of cd playback systems are aware of
compatibilty issues with the different colored dyes on Cd-R discs.
>
> More audiophile nonsense, now infesting the computer world.
NO. It's your lack of knowledge and negativity that infests this group.
Much like
the
> idea of "monster cable" for USB keyboard cables.
not quite.
>
> >
> > Not only the high end but also less transparency and slightly more
'grain'
> > especially through headphones/earphones.
>
> Not possible. Get an education, sport.
Your lack of knowledge on the subject is so evident, so stop being a
dumbfuck
EKIM
> Blind tests, anyone?
Yes, absolutely.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Sure, many times. Exact copies are possible, but it takes 2 things:
>
> (1) A good CD-R drive to write the disc.
Pretty much most healthy 2x and faster writers are good enough.
>
> (2) A good CDROM to read the disc reliably.
>
> (1) and (2) can be the same drive, particularly if the drive is made
> by Plexstor.
>
>
> >
> The digital outputs on the standalone readers I've tested are
> nothing to write home about, either.
What problems have you found with these digital outputs that can effect
sound and has nothing to do with reliabilty of physical connection
and or not a dig out at all?
> I check the tracks for digital accuacy vis-a-vis the original files
> they were burned from with AudioGrabber.
Arny, with what particular blanks have you found digital "inaccuracy"?
this info would be actually relevant to this thread
>
> I put the CD's on a cheap CD player and test the recovered audio for
> general technical quality,
Arny? What do you mean by "general technical quality"? Provided the
burn completed properly and is able to be played completely without
flaws on a cd-player, without glitches, then that CD-R is technically
fine.
using tests like those posted at
> http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/
That URL is currently not UP. BTW.
. If the player performs like it
> should, particularly in the jitter test, then I consider the CD-R to
> be "acceptable".
What do you mean by "perform like it should"?
But what CD-Rs have you found to be "unacceptable"? If it't your site
you must point to, then please give a working URL. thanks
Again, it's pretty clear to the group that you think it's impossible for
anyone to blindly, audibly differentiate between an original audio cd
and a flawless Cd-R audio duplication with the exact same data,
regardless of color of data surface. Am I right?
I also test on a "good" CD player. Same criteria
> apply.
Good cd player......cheap cd player What is the differnce as long as
they are able to play the burned cd that seems to be free of error ?
Let's get real! If the newly burned audio CD doesn't reliably play on a
player without, grossly *glitchy* errors , it's one of four reasons:
1) That CD PLAYER has obvvious problems.
2) That CD failed to burn properly for whatever reason....too many
3) That CD is just not compatible to that particular player(regardless
of cost)......mostly reflective surface issues,redbook, dyes,etc.
4) That CD-R blank was FAULTY to begin with and should not have been
used anyways.
>
> Then I take the CD's down to my main system and listen to them. I do
> things in this order only because all the testing stuff is on the
> same floor as the place where I assemble machines.
Provided that your CD's were properly burned and had no apparent flaws
in the final product, and all the data is bit perfect, there's no
difference in sound of blank to blank and original cd......to YOU! Am I
correct, Arny?
Arny Krüger
"EKIM" <eki...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:84ic5t$ccm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> > Blind tests, anyone?
>
> Yes, absolutely.
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sure, many times. Exact copies are possible, but it takes 2
things:
> >
> > (1) A good CD-R drive to write the disc.
>
> Pretty much most healthy 2x and faster writers are good enough.
> >
> > (2) A good CDROM to read the disc reliably.
> >
> > (1) and (2) can be the same drive, particularly if the drive is
made
> > by Plexstor.
> >
> >
> > >
> > The digital outputs on the standalone readers I've tested are
> > nothing to write home about, either.
>
> What problems have you found with these digital outputs that can
effect
> sound and has nothing to do with reliabilty of physical
connection
> and or not a dig out at all?
I wasn't necessarily talking about sonic differences, I was talking
about bit-perfect reproduction.
> > I check the tracks for digital accuacy vis-a-vis the original
files
> > they were burned from with AudioGrabber.
> Arny, with what particular blanks have you found digital
"inaccuracy"?
> this info would be actually relevant to this thread
I have found that a good, modern CD-R will provide digital accuracy
with a broad variety of kinds of CD-R blanks.
> > I put the CD's on a cheap CD player and test the recovered audio
for
> > general technical quality,
> Arny? What do you mean by "general technical quality"?
Please see the player and recorder tests at www.pcavtech.com for
examples and explanations.
> Provided the
> burn completed properly and is able to be played completely
without
> flaws on a cd-player, without glitches, then that CD-R is
technically
> fine.
I agree.
> using tests like those posted at
> > http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/
>
> That URL is currently not UP. BTW.
Thanks for pointing that out. I have complained to the service
provider. They have undergone a change of ownership, and become less
relaible, but so far they have got the site back up in a reasonable
amount of time when I complain
(http://www.firstworld.com/contact_us/index.html#support ).
> . If the player performs like it
> > should, particularly in the jitter test, then I consider the
CD-R to
> > be "acceptable".
> What do you mean by "perform like it should"?
Perform like it does using what are generally considered to be good
CD-R's made on "good" blanks. I have about 300 blanks from about a
dozen sources on hand.
> But what CD-Rs have you found to be "unacceptable"? If it't your
site
> you must point to, then please give a working URL. thanks
In the past I have found that in general CD-R's were not capable of
making "bit perfect" recordings. As far as it goes, my Plexstor
P412RX won't give "acceptable" results with low quality blanks such
as the Princo's. A low cost CD-R that I find works well with minimal
to zero regard for media quality is the Mitsumi 4802.
> Again, it's pretty clear to the group that you think it's
impossible for
> anyone to blindly, audibly differentiate between an original
audio cd
> and a flawless Cd-R audio duplication with the exact same data,
> regardless of color of data surface. Am I right?
Well tautologically speaking, yes. If you can reliably hear a
difference, then I would blame the combination of blank, recorder
and player. It is my experience that if you pick the right
equipment and keep on top of the quality of outbound product then
reliably hearing a difference can be EXTREMELY challenging.
> I also test on a "good" CD player. Same criteria
> > apply.
>
> Good cd player......cheap cd player What is the differnce as
long as
> they are able to play the burned cd that seems to be free of error
?
Some CD players can't play ALL CD-R's well. Some require CD-R's that
are made with specific brands of blanks. Other's just won't play
CD-R's well at all.
> Let's get real! If the newly burned audio CD doesn't reliably play
on a
> player without, grossly *glitchy* errors , it's one of four
reasons:
> 1) That CD PLAYER has obvvious problems.
Agreed.
> 2) That CD failed to burn properly for whatever reason....too many
Agreed
> 3) That CD is just not compatible to that particular
player(regardless
> of cost)......mostly reflective surface issues,redbook,
dyes,etc.
Agreed.
> 4) That CD-R blank was FAULTY to begin with and should not have
been
> used anyways.
Agreed.
> > Then I take the CD's down to my main system and listen to them.
I do
> > things in this order only because all the testing stuff is on
the
> > same floor as the place where I assemble machines.
>
> Provided that your CD's were properly burned and had no apparent
flaws
> in the final product, and all the data is bit perfect, there's no
> difference in sound of blank to blank and original cd......to YOU!
Am I
> correct, Arny?
I read this last paragraph to be slightly different than your points
1-4, just above, but if it was your intent that the two agree (on
the points 1-4 side) then I agree with your intent.
paul lew
<opera...@worldjazz.com> wrote:
>in article 3hYa4.1196$B6....@quark.idirect.com, EQ at
>eloquent_...@hotmail.com wrote on 31/12/99 16:44:
>
>>
>> I've yet to hear a CDR copy that sound AS GOOD as the master source. With
>> CD burners, there's the ECC problem. Has anyone verified if using proper
>> 'offsets' in Exact Audio Copy produce exact copies. This seems to be the
>> only hope. With standalones, there are too many issues, perhaps coax vs.
>> optical cables, higher jitter than comp. burners
>
>This is a lot of hooey. CD-R's are used to copy DATA; if computer data is
>corrupted you end up with a program that won't run. Claiming that there are
>"sound" problems with CD-R copies is just plain lunacy.
>
>Numerous published tests have written audio data unto CD-R's, and then used
>a computer to compare the data. NOTHING to indicate that any difference
>exists, or that different colour blanks perform differently, etc.
>
>More audiophile nonsense, now infesting the computer world. Much like the
>idea of "monster cable" for USB keyboard cables. Bwahahahahah!
>
You are definitely incorrect as AUDIO data is differently configured
than "DATA" data; the computer software needs to do DAE which
is a conversion process and so subject to output errors/differences.
For myself, I find that the stand-alone copies are much better than
the computer generated copies with the same media from the same
vendor; as such I redid the computer copies. The type of music
will dictate the apparent differences as I found that the
stand-alone copies were less dull and were more spatial for the
type of music I listen to. There were a couple of CDs that didn't
sound different but then they didn't have much acoustical
instrumentation.
StuWelwood
>is
>> corrupted you end up with a program that won't run.
>
Sorry, to inform you that it is. As a Senior Software Analyst with an Inc 500
company, I can state that ANY but the most trivial and judiciuously contrived
corruption will render the program unusable. It simply will not run.
Every day across the world a large number of CDRs are burned in inexpensive
recorders using very inexpensive media with fully 100% recovery of the digital
data. Anything less is considered a failure.
As for jitter, the data is read off of the CD or CDR into a buffer that
supplies the D/A converters at a rate determined by a crystal oscillator. If
you think that you can hear the variation of frequency obtained by the use of a
crystal oscillator, then you *think* that your hearing can out-perform all but
the most stable lab test instruments ever built in this respect.
Stuart
Arny Krüger
"paul lew" <pa...@crane.li-po.edu> wrote in message
news:386d0011...@news.rcsis.com...
> You are definitely incorrect as AUDIO data is differently
configured
> than "DATA" data; the computer software needs to do DAE which
> is a conversion process and so subject to output
errors/differences.
Actually, DAE is an "extraction" process, which is what the "E" and
DAE stands for.
Like ANYTHING in life, DAE is prone to errors but it is often LESS
prone to errors than just playing the same CD on a CD player.
Since DAE is not a synchronous process, it can incorporate retries
when regular CD player error-correction processes would have to say
"uncle" and drop into error concealment mode.
Since DAE is not synchronous, it can take place faster or slower
than the audio data would play in real time. Often it takes place at
speeds like 7x, which means that you can DAE an audio CD in its
entirety and then start writing the copy (at say 2x or 4x) thus
avoiding a "coaster" if the source disc needs additional cleaning,
and still finish the whole copy operation sooner if the read phase
completes normally.
With a good CDROM and software, error-free DAE can be performed on
audio CD's that are not playable on regular CD players. Been there,
done that.
Sometimes people have been known to make copies by playing audio
CD's through the (often sonically limited) DAC in the CD ROM, and
record them using the (often sonically limited) sound card in their
PC, and not be pleased with the results for understandable reasons.
Brian L. McCarty
smi...@my-deja.com wrote on 31/12/99 21:44:
> If you knew
> anything about CD-R blanks used for audio, you'd already know that there
> are widely known compatibility issues with blanks that use different
> colored dyes on the data surface. Many perfectly functioning cd
> players simply will not play some cd-r audio discs that are not either
> silver or gold, or just silver, yet they play perfectly fine on others.
Yes, inability for some older CD players to play from CD-R's is a known
problem. Lower power lasers, etc have a lot to do with it.
Has nothing to do with what the poster claimed, that some CD-R's changed the
"sound quality" especially making the HF's "grainy".
Absurd and unscientific nonsense.
Darryl
You were saying......
>
>As for jitter, the data is read off of the CD or CDR into a buffer that
>supplies the D/A converters at a rate determined by a crystal oscillator. If
>you think that you can hear the variation of frequency obtained by the use of a
>crystal oscillator, then you *think* that your hearing can out-perform all but
>the most stable lab test instruments ever built in this respect.
I know what you mean. I have been reading some mods where they
mechanically and acoustically isolate the crystal because they figure
the vibrations are causing jitter in the oscillator. Perhaps one
could believe the effect might exist, but that it is of an order of
magnitude sufficient to make any audible difference is stretching the
friendship. :-)
Darryl
Greg
Darryl wrote in message <38717de0...@news.mpx.com.au>...
>>As for jitter, the data is read off of the CD or
>>CDR into a buffer that supplies the D/A converters
>>at a rate determined by a crystal oscillator.
>I know what you mean. I have been reading some
>mods where they mechanically and acoustically isolate
>the crystal because they figure the vibrations are causing
>jitter in the oscillator. Perhaps one could believe the
>effect might exist, but that it is of an order of magnitude
>sufficient to make any audible difference is stretching the
>friendship. :-)
A real bad 10MHz crystal will generate less than a
picosecond of jitter due to acceleration effects of
10g's.
Greg
Darryl
You were saying......
I had a feeling it was insignificant! :-)
Darryl
Quick
"André Huisman" <see_pos...@il.ok> wrote in message
news:84ourv$gfk$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
[snip a *most* excellent post -- bravo!]
Many do not understand the digital domain and attribute
familiar analog properties to it.
-Quick
André Huisman
> Blind tests, anyone?
No thanx, I know the outcome (can't fool the FC/B ;-)
> > With CD burners, there's the ECC problem.
> Hmm, it works and corrects data with reasonable numbers of errors
> back to the precise original data. You call this a "problem"?
Some people seem to forget that a CORRECTED error is nothing more than a
CORRECT value (sort of like when our teacher corrected our 1+1=3 outcome to
2).
> AudioGrabber checksums are good enough for audio.
Try Feurio (www.feurio.de). The newer version actually tells you the amount
of uncorrectable errors (C2) that occured (using the Ultraplex I have
anyway). I've only seen it hit above 0 once (on some misprint that is). PL
also is increddibly low during DAE (especially when considering that Feurio
builds a peak list during DAE (which goes quite fast on an Ultraplex40 ;-)
as well).
> The digital outputs on the standalone readers I've tested are
> nothing to write home about, either.
Not to mention the number of Philips users that have a stand alone CD-writer
that performs sample rate conversion on EVERY signal it sees in it's digital
input (newer versions seem to have fixed that feature BTW).
> I check the tracks for digital accuacy vis-a-vis the original files
> they were burned from with AudioGrabber.
FC/B works much faster (but DOES give errors if there was a start offset
problem (it simply resyncs to that BTW)).
--
André Huisman
New Line licht & geluid
hui...@new-line.nl
http://www.new-line.nl
http://www.djfaq.cjb.net
--- pardon my French, I'm Dutch ---
André Huisman
> You are definitely incorrect as AUDIO data is differently configured
> than "DATA" data; the computer software needs to do DAE which
> is a conversion process and so subject to output errors/differences.
What conversion? You mean the fourteen to eight "demodulation"? Or the
EXTRACTION of the actual samples from the (quite) redundant data? The end
result STILL is the sample that was written on the CD in the first place.
This is a field where one can actually use simple tools to look for
differences. SOME of us have. Just make a copy of a CD, a copy of the copy
and a copy of that copy, finally making a copy of said copy. Now we again
extract (Emphasis on EXTRACT) the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy
to the harddrive of our computer. We also again EXTRACT the original to the
computer.
NOW for the final test, we run a FC/B (for Dos laymen that means File
Compare / Binarie) to look for differences (in the byte (half sample)
level!!!). And what do you know......... NOT one single BIT is different
(when using the RIGHT tools for the job).
Of course you'll get garbish when using shitty equipment. But then again,
using shitty equipment to build a house quite often results in a shitty
house as well.
Are there differences between the copy and the original? If all's well,
there are NO differences in the extracted samples. BUT there can be
differences in the absolute positions of the pits and lands (some call that
jitter). The funny thing is that EVERY good CD-player has NO problems with
such jitter UNLESS it's soo bad that we'll actually shift a complete
land/pit (and that's something that's next to impossible to achieve AFAIK).
So do the smaller jitter errors give problems? NOT on a GOOD CD-player. A
GOOD CD-player uses a memory buffer to read in the data, with a CRYSTAL
clock as a reference to READ out the data. Of course some (lala high end
lala units) don't use that scheme. THOSE players (ya know, the lemons) DO
have problems.
SO: If you hear small differences, you probably bought one of those
emperor's clothes thingies. Why? Because if there are problems with playing
CD-R discs, those problems are QUITE noticable. You know, things like NOT
being able to play them, or skipping through the CD like crazy (such quite
noticable problems).
Still doubtful? Why don't you build an error counter for your CD-player.
There have been some mods out there for some of the most used drive
mechanics (Sony, Philips) that provide you with a number telling you what
amount of CORRECTABLE (as in yielding the ABSOLUTE correct sample value)
errors have occured as well as the number of uncorrectable (thus concealed
by interpolation and as such suspect to droop in sound quality) samples.
To get back to the FC/B thingie. A normal audio CD (74 minutes) has about
740MB on it. That comes down to a staggering 6207569920 bits of information
(start counting and someone will releave you of your task in a few THOUSAND
years!) where the FC/B resulted in a ZERO difference (and that my friends
deserves a BIG round of applause for the people that gave us this
increddible system).
> For myself, I find that the stand-alone copies are much better than
> the computer generated copies with the same media from the same
> vendor; as such I redid the computer copies.
And (without meaning to sound disrespectful), this is the BIGGEST load of
nonsense I've EVER heard. NOT only do a LOT of the stand alone machines
apply sample rate conversion (with the Philips units being a prime example
of that) but the whole concept of stand alone machines (using TAO I might
add) give the oppertunety to soooooo much more errors where a GOOD set of
computer tools (Plextor is the first that comes to mind here) can provide a
sample IDENTICAL copy of the original.
Besides. As long as not ONE SINGLE BIT of the 6207569920 bits of information
on the 5th generation copy come out wrong, you will NOT hear me say even the
slightest bit about sound quality where higher generation copies are
concerned (for I KNOW the number would contradict me beyond reasonable
doubt).
And did I listen to the differences on my $$$ system? I did. Did I hear
differences? Well..... I was wrong about 50% of the time (and what did that
say again???).
> The type of music
> will dictate the apparent differences as I found that the
> stand-alone copies were less dull and were more spatial for the
> type of music I listen to.
You found a lot of things. You however FORGOT the most important thing. You
should have found that your BRAIN got in the way of your "measurements". Or
at least that's what _I_ think went wrong with your measurements!
smi...@my-deja.com
stuwe...@aol.com (StuWelwood) wrote:
> >> This is a lot of hooey. CD-R's are used to copy DATA; if computer
data
> >is
> >> corrupted you end up with a program that won't run.
> >
> >Not all true. All depends on the level of corruption.
>
> Sorry, to inform you that it is. As a Senior Software Analyst with an
Inc 500
> company, I can state that ANY but the most trivial and judiciuously
contrived
> corruption will render the program unusable. It simply will not run.
What is your definition of a corrupt data file and what "program" are
you talking about? Depepending on what software program we are talking
about, a data file can be infected, altered or missing strings of bits
(like an audio CD), and still be operational. I'm not saying the program
will perform the full task, it very well may perform some. What I'm
saying is corruption may not render a file absolutely useless and
unreadable and as "software" person, I'm sure you may realize this, I
hope. If too many bits of data are missing or altered to a point where
the file may be unrecognizable by your program, of'course the file may
be unreadable and not compatible.
An audio CD can have several pin holes in it and actually still play.
>
> Every day across the world a large number of CDRs are burned in
inexpensive
> recorders using very inexpensive media with fully 100% recovery of the
digital
> data.
OK, but what about 98% "recovery" of the digital data? Does it render
the program unusable? Usually NO, the missing data(that can't be
'corrected') may just be heard as audible glitch somewhere in between
the program time, but functional nonetheless.
More prevalent reasons for unusualbe CD-R audio discs are improper
FORMATTING and or really screwed allocation tables or pointers. This is
the more common type of *corruption* rendering CD useless!
But really it's not the data itself that is of concern, but the
extraction
Anything less is considered a failure.
Out of the hundred and hundreds of CD-R audio burns I've made, there
have been a small handfull that had probably less than seconds worth
of high frequency clicks and pops. These are considered failures to me
too, but a less than a second worth of glitch out of 70 or so min. of
otherwise fine music may not be useless. I give these copies to friends
that can care less about a disc being only 99 percent true. If the
glitches are more than a few seconds, I throw out!
>
> As for jitter, the data is read off of the CD or CDR into a buffer
that
> supplies the D/A converters at a rate determined by a crystal
oscillator. If
> you think that you can hear the variation of frequency obtained by the
use of a
> crystal oscillator, then you *think* that your hearing can out-perform
all but
> the most stable lab test instruments ever built in this respect.
>
> Stuart
For whatever the reason may be, yes there is a "variation of frequency"
that is audible. And yes, with 100% 'bit perfect' CD-R copies. Due to
what? Perhaps the reflective surface of the CD. There are widely known
compatibilty issues with new and old players alike, with not necassarily
CD-R disks themselves, but with the different colored dyes (blue,
green, yellow, but rarely ever SILVER) used in making 'cheaper' blanks
that may have all to do with this audible jitter. There really is only
one way to backup a claim of audible difference in various CD-R audio
blanks and that is scoring positive in controlled, blind test. The
kicker is that it's rather easy with the right program material.
The original poster's claims of high frequency "grain" in Cd-r is
nothing new. These exact same claims have existed for almost a decade
and IMHO has zero to due with flawed Cd-R process nor is data related.
Stable lab test meaurements vs human audibility? In my opinion, these
discussions go absolutely nowhere.
Tom D. Smith, phD.
Arny Krüger
"André Huisman" <see_pos...@il.ok> wrote in message
> "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> > Blind tests, anyone?
>
> No thanx, I know the outcome (can't fool the FC/B ;-)
Well, Andre you know that and I know that, but remember we are
talking about RAO "wisdom" here. ;-)
> > > With CD burners, there's the ECC problem.
>
> > Hmm, it works and corrects data with reasonable numbers of errors
> > back to the precise original data. You call this a "problem"?
> Some people seem to forget that a CORRECTED error is nothing more
than a
> CORRECT value (sort of like when our teacher corrected our 1+1=3
outcome to
> 2).
Exactly.
> > AudioGrabber checksums are good enough for audio.
>
> Try Feurio (www.feurio.de). The newer version actually tells you
the amount
> of uncorrectable errors (C2) that occured (using the Ultraplex I
have
> anyway). I've only seen it hit above 0 once (on some misprint that
is). PL
> also is increddibly low during DAE (especially when considering
that Feurio
> builds a peak list during DAE (which goes quite fast on an
Ultraplex40 ;-)
> as well).
I'll download it and take a look.
> > The digital outputs on the standalone readers I've tested are
> > nothing to write home about, either.
> Not to mention the number of Philips users that have a stand alone
CD-writer
> that performs sample rate conversion on EVERY signal it sees in
it's digital
> input (newer versions seem to have fixed that feature BTW).
Agreed on both items.
> > I check the tracks for digital accuacy vis-a-vis the original
files
> > they were burned from with AudioGrabber.
> FC/B works much faster (but DOES give errors if there was a start
offset
> problem (it simply resyncs to that BTW)).
Actually, AudioGrabber calculates the checksum during the rip, so
there is zero additional processing time. Nothing is faster than
something that takes zero additional time, right?
For critical applications I run Audiograbber on the files I create
the CD from and then check EVERY outbound CD. Variations are
essentially zero with good burning and ripping equipment.
The most common kind (actually the only kind I've found) of
variations in checksums are random errors. They always seem to happen
during the read phase, not the write phase. IOW, the CD-R's seem to
be always written right, but not always read right. IME ripping is
more challenging to get "right" than burning.
I think that reports of audible differences from CD-R's come from the
usual 3 source that we see with cables, and other things:
(1) Defective equipment, whether defective due to poor design,
construction or deterioration in storage and use.
(2) Defective installation and use of what could be good equipment.
(3) Placebo effects.
My best current estimate is be that these items show up about 1/3 of
the time each, for established forms of audio technology that are
currently routinely capable of "sonically transparent operation" (by
technical tests). That includes CD readers and writers, amplifiers,
and cables for sure. It specifically excludes loudspeakers,
microphones, rooms, and any aspect of the production or playing of
vinyl records. There is some indication analog tape is excluded, and
certainly cassette tape is excluded.
Steve Maki
> Try Feurio (www.feurio.de).
This looks like a very cool do-everything program. I'm going to
try it out.
--
Steve Maki
Tom Pohorsky
André Huisman <see_pos...@il.ok> wrote:
>And (without meaning to sound disrespectful), this is the BIGGEST load of
>nonsense I've EVER heard. NOT only do a LOT of the stand alone machines
>apply sample rate conversion (with the Philips units being a prime example
>of that) but the whole concept of stand alone machines (using TAO I might
>add) give the oppertunety to soooooo much more errors where a GOOD set of
>computer tools (Plextor is the first that comes to mind here) can provide a
>sample IDENTICAL copy of the original.
Do you know of a list of such re-sampling players ? My friend making
the questionable CDR's has a Philips-family (Marantz ?) unit.
Thanks in advance,
Tom.
Tom Pohorsky
>The original poster's claims of high frequency "grain" in Cd-r is
>nothing new. These exact same claims have existed for almost a decade
>and IMHO has zero to due with flawed Cd-R process nor is data related.
Recall that my "claims" were backed up by two double-blind tests.
Now, I'm pretty much a bits-is-bits guy myself, so I made the original
post to find out what else can enter into the equation. Sample rate
conversion in the stand-alone player seems the likliest explanation
to me. In *my* HO, this would be a flawed Cd-R process.
I've never heard a difference between my own (computer-hosted) CDR
copies and original. Did a DBT between writing at 1X and 2X, and
I don't know that I've ever heard anything sound more identical.
I was stripped of my golden ears rating the next day :-).
FWIW, I've seen to many real-time copy errors on PC's like mine;
I read an image to hard disk and write from that.
Thanks for all your thoughts,
Darryl
You were saying......
>For whatever the reason may be, yes there is a "variation of frequency"
>that is audible. And yes, with 100% 'bit perfect' CD-R copies. Due to
>what? Perhaps the reflective surface of the CD. There are widely known
>compatibilty issues with new and old players alike, with not necassarily
>CD-R disks themselves, but with the different colored dyes (blue,
>green, yellow, but rarely ever SILVER) used in making 'cheaper' blanks
>that may have all to do with this audible jitter.
'Jitter' occurring before the buffer that does does not result in
outright errors, cannot have _any_ effect on the output sound.
Instead of a buffer, imagine the data is stored in a file on a
computer HD. The playback mechanism from this file/buffer, is
independent of the CD colour, surface,'jitter' etc.
Darryl
paul lew
<see_pos...@il.ok> wrote:
>"paul lew" <pa...@crane.li-po.edu> wrote:
>
>> You are definitely incorrect as AUDIO data is differently configured
>> than "DATA" data; the computer software needs to do DAE which
>> is a conversion process and so subject to output errors/differences.
>
>What conversion? You mean the fourteen to eight "demodulation"? Or the
>EXTRACTION of the actual samples from the (quite) redundant data? The end
>result STILL is the sample that was written on the CD in the first place.
>
>This is a field where one can actually use simple tools to look for
>differences. SOME of us have. Just make a copy of a CD, a copy of the copy
>and a copy of that copy, finally making a copy of said copy. Now we again
>extract (Emphasis on EXTRACT) the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy
>to the harddrive of our computer. We also again EXTRACT the original to the
>computer.
>
I just "updated" to a 40x reader, the NEC 40x scsi marketed by Hi-Val.
EZCD, EAC, Nero demo, and CDRW demo says the NEC doesn't do
DAE even tho the NEC claims "audio extraction" capabilities. Now,
try to convince me that computer copies does a better job... If
"DATA" is "DATA" then the "bit coping" should always work no matter
if the format is AUDIO.
"Bit coping" isn't done by the copy software else I would be able
to make an audio copy of my music cd with my new NEC manufactured
in Sept., 1999; of course, that was the last millienum....:-)
Andrzej Popowski
>Recall that my "claims" were backed up by two double-blind tests.
>Now, I'm pretty much a bits-is-bits guy myself, so I made the original
>post to find out what else can enter into the equation. Sample rate
>conversion in the stand-alone player seems the likliest explanation
>to me. In *my* HO, this would be a flawed Cd-R process.
I think that sample rate conversion would destroy HDCD information.
You can try it. CD copy recorded on computer preserve this info, and
copy is detected as HDCD disc.
I think that first Philips standalone CD-recorder (870 ?) does sample
rate conversion.
Murray Peterson
>What is your definition of a corrupt data file and what "program"
>are you talking about? Depepending on what software program we
>are talking about, a data file can be infected, altered or missing
> strings of bits (like an audio CD), and still be operational.
Any CD that has a single bit error is (and should be) considered
completely defective. If my CD burner doesn't provide a perfect
copy, then I throw out the CD. I don't care if it's a computer
program, computer data, or audio.
--
Murray Peterson
Email: murray_...@home.com (remove underscore)
URL: http://www.members.home.net/murraypeterson
smi...@my-deja.com
m...@home.com.invalid (Murray Peterson) wrote:
> smi...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >What is your definition of a corrupt data file and what "program"
> >are you talking about? Depepending on what software program we
> >are talking about, a data file can be infected, altered or missing
> > strings of bits (like an audio CD), and still be operational.
>
> Any CD that has a single bit error is (and should be) considered
> completely defective. If my CD burner doesn't provide a perfect
> copy, then I throw out the CD. I don't care if it's a computer
> program, computer data, or audio.
99.5% of my burns have been flawless and bit perfect 2x,4x,8x! The point
was that a few bit errors on an audio cd WILL NOT render that disc
unplayable, flawed yes, but not unplayable.
>
> --
> Murray Peterson
> Email: murray_...@home.com (remove underscore)
> URL: http://www.members.home.net/murraypeterson
>
Norbert Hahn
>I just "updated" to a 40x reader, the NEC 40x scsi marketed by Hi-Val.
>
>EZCD, EAC, Nero demo, and CDRW demo says the NEC doesn't do
>DAE even tho the NEC claims "audio extraction" capabilities.
Then NEC should supply a utility program that does the DAE. Seems to
be either a driver problem or you need an upgrade in the firmware....
Later,
Norbert
Arny Krüger
>
> I just "updated" to a 40x reader, the NEC 40x scsi marketed by
Hi-Val.
> EZCD, EAC, Nero demo, and CDRW demo says the NEC doesn't do
> DAE even tho the NEC claims "audio extraction" capabilities.
Umm, yet another failing of vendor claims versus actual performance?
>Now, try to convince me that computer copies does a better job...
I believe that I have said that this is contingent on having proper
equipment and procedures.
Obviously, you don't have proper equipment and procedures.
> If "DATA" is "DATA" then the "bit coping" should always work no
matter
> if the format is AUDIO.
Wrong.
Obviously, one needs proper equipment and procedures.
> "Bit coping" isn't done by the copy software else I would be able
> to make an audio copy of my music cd with my new NEC manufactured
> in Sept., 1999; of course, that was the last millienum....:-)
Obviously, you don't have proper equipment and procedures.
Tell us how you researched this project, and which individuals with
a track record for making this kind of thing work that you consulted
with.
Or, have you just tried to set your failed attempts up as being
somehow superior and more representative than other's proven
abilities to get the job done?
I'd love to help you but as long as you keep your head where the sun
shines not, I can't.
Arny Krüger
"Norbert Hahn" <ha...@hrz.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote in message
news:3871c3d8...@news.tu-darmstadt.de...
> pa...@crane.li-po.edu (paul lew) wrote:
>
> >I just "updated" to a 40x reader, the NEC 40x scsi marketed by
Hi-Val.
> >
> >EZCD, EAC, Nero demo, and CDRW demo says the NEC doesn't do
> >DAE even tho the NEC claims "audio extraction" capabilities.
>
to
> be either a driver problem or you need an upgrade in the
firmware....
>
IME, most CDROM's are generally not supplied with DAE software or
drivers. Plexstor's are, but they are exceptional.
Here are some DAE resources on the web:
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~psyche/cdda/
http://pages.cthome.net/homepage/eac/stream.htm
http://user.online.be/~erikd/daespeed.htm
http://www.audiograbber.com-us.net/faq.html
http://www.xingtech.com/support/docs/audiocatalyst/acat_t_guide.html
http://user.glo.be/~erikd/daetest.htm
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~psyche/cdda/CDDAsoftware_f.shtml
André Huisman
> >This is a field where one can actually use simple tools to look for
> >differences. SOME of us have. Just make a copy of a CD, a copy of the
copy
> >and a copy of that copy, finally making a copy of said copy. Now we again
> >extract (Emphasis on EXTRACT) the copy of the copy of the copy of the
copy
> >to the harddrive of our computer. We also again EXTRACT the original to
the
> >computer.
> I just "updated" to a 40x reader, the NEC 40x scsi marketed by Hi-Val.
Too bad you didn't go for the sort of No.1 (well not sort of, it IS the
no.1) in DAE, the Plextor.
> EZCD, EAC, Nero demo, and CDRW demo says the NEC doesn't do
> DAE even tho the NEC claims "audio extraction" capabilities. Now,
> try to convince me that computer copies does a better job... If
> "DATA" is "DATA" then the "bit coping" should always work no matter
> if the format is AUDIO.
You're very welcome to read my post again using a magnifying glass. You will
NOT hear me say that extracting audio (there's that word EXTRACTING again)
is the same as reading data. Not only does a CDDA disc not have a file
system, it also lacks the added block headers normal Data CD's have. THAT is
a very important issue. Why you ask? Because when the reading is
interrupted, the CD-Rom player can NOT know (not by default) where it
stopped reading because it doesn't know the last reading adress (since this
IS the block header which is absent in CDDA discs).
Some CD-Rom players have a fancy piece of firmware to know where they left
off (again Plextor is the name here).
Now I hear you think: "but why doesn't CDDA have block headers????". That's
simple. CDDA was ment to be read out in a continuous way (by means of
playing the CD). That's why there was no need for sync patterns (block
headers).
So is extracting audio the same as reading data? No, of course not. These
are two entirely different things. There are plenty of example (CD-Rom
players) that are VERY capable of reading Data CD's yet totally screw up
when asked to perform audio extraction. Again Plextor being the prime
example of a player which IS capable of doing very very very good Digital
Audio EXTRACTION.
> "Bit coping" isn't done by the copy software else I would be able
> to make an audio copy of my music cd with my new NEC manufactured
> in Sept., 1999; of course, that was the last millienum....:-)
You could always turn back the clock and make the player believe it's still
1999 ;-))
BTW: There are some very good CDR faqs out there. You can probably find them
with www.altavista.com
André Huisman
> Do you know of a list of such re-sampling players ?
No, haven't found one. Do remember having read a good piece of info about
the first Philips recorder (was that the 680???) that DID have SR and
performed it on every digital input (even if it was 44k1). According to
others, Philips removed this feature in their newer writers (the ones with
double drawers if I'm not mistaken).
> My friend making
> the questionable CDR's has a Philips-family (Marantz ?) unit.
I don't know about the Marantz. Maybe a quick mail to the manufacturer could
offer some insight in this case?
If the recorder can automatically record from various digital "sources"
(32k, 44k1 and 48k), then the recorder might be suspect (with emphasis on
might) especially if there's no switch you need to set to accomodate for the
various sample rates.
Personally I don't get it. Why apply a bunch of calculations to a signal
when the outcome should be what was going in in the first place??? Sounds
quite redundant to me (BTW I believe the Sony MD players suffer from this
exact same "feature").
paul lew
wrote:
>
>"paul lew" <pa...@crane.li-po.edu> wrote in message
>news:38712f0b...@news.rcsis.com...
>>
>> I just "updated" to a 40x reader, the NEC 40x scsi marketed by
>Hi-Val.
>
>> EZCD, EAC, Nero demo, and CDRW demo says the NEC doesn't do
>> DAE even tho the NEC claims "audio extraction" capabilities.
>
>Umm, yet another failing of vendor claims versus actual performance?
>
>>Now, try to convince me that computer copies does a better job...
>
>I believe that I have said that this is contingent on having proper
>equipment and procedures.
>
>Obviously, you don't have proper equipment and procedures.
>
The jury is still out whether the equipment is not "proper" as
the NEC 40x scsi (model 3010A) is so new it is not even
listed on NEC's web page.
Also, looking at the nt registery, Adaptec EZCD, and probably
others, apparently gear their software based on certain
parameters of a cdrom drive just like the cdrom writers. There
should be a more "generic" method of doing things.
BTW, CDSpeed99 says my NEC 40x does DAE at 10X and
no problems........are the commercial/shareware software
doing things incorrectly??
Arny Krüger
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2000 11:56:24 GMT, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"paul lew" <pa...@crane.li-po.edu> wrote in message
> >news:38712f0b...@news.rcsis.com...
> >>
> >> I just "updated" to a 40x reader, the NEC 40x scsi marketed by
> >Hi-Val.
> >
> >> EZCD, EAC, Nero demo, and CDRW demo says the NEC doesn't do
> >> DAE even tho the NEC claims "audio extraction" capabilities.
> >
> >Umm, yet another failing of vendor claims versus actual
performance?
> >
> >>Now, try to convince me that computer copies does a better
job...
> >
> >I believe that I have said that this is contingent on having
proper
> >equipment and procedures.
> >
> >Obviously, you don't have proper equipment and procedures.
> The jury is still out whether the equipment is not "proper" as
> the NEC 40x scsi (model 3010A) is so new it is not even
> listed on NEC's web page.
Once upon a time I still remember well, equipment was a big issue,
just to get things to work at all. Last year this time, I was
revelling in the first IDE drive I found that was routinely capable
of doing bit-perfect rips - the Creative Labs 4060 which was a
premium-priced IDE drive and not easy to find. Late this summer I
did the usual tests on a scum-of-the earth "Cyberdrive/US Drives'
40x and found that it was bit perfect, suggesting that good IDE
drives for ripping are getting more common.
> Also, looking at the nt registery, Adaptec EZCD, and probably
> others, apparently gear their software based on certain
> parameters of a cdrom drive just like the cdrom writers. There
> should be a more "generic" method of doing things.
Largely a matter of matching up software.
I've found that NT usually has enough software support for some of
the common tools right out of the box. In other cases, separate
loading of Adaptec's ASPI layer is required, but IME loading EZ CD
3.5x is sufficient to do that. I have not given EZ CD 4.x a tumble
yet. I'm running Audiograbber with the USD 40x and a Mitsumi 4802
on the Win2k system I'm typing this on.
> BTW, CDSpeed99 says my NEC 40x does DAE at 10X and
> no problems........are the commercial/shareware software
> doing things incorrectly??
Depends which software and in what combinations. I can tell you what
works when I've made it work. Until then, what will be is what will
be.
Andrzej Popowski
>BTW, CDSpeed99 says my NEC 40x does DAE at 10X and
>no problems........are the commercial/shareware software
>doing things incorrectly??
There is standard command set for ATAPI drives which include DAE. I am
afraid that there is no such a standard for SCSI drives. It is up to
software to recognise CD-ROM drive and use proper command to preform
DAE. You can tray to use programs like WinDAC or Feurio
(www.feurio.com) which allows you to chose between different command
sets.
Robert Zimmerman
> problem. Lower power lasers, etc have a lot to do with it.
>
I have no problem playing any CD-Rs on my ancient XLZ-1050, but my
wife can't play ANY CD-Rs in here '98 Volvo car stereo.
Bob
paul lew
My has a '92 sony cd player (original equip) and it plays CD-Rs with
all types of pigmentation. The '87 Onkyo is also able to play
all types of CD-Rs.
Arny Krüger
"Robert Zimmerman" <BobD...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:3876D218...@iname.com...
> > Yes, inability for some older CD players to play from CD-R's is
a known
> > problem. Lower power lasers, etc have a lot to do with it.
> >
>
> I have no problem playing any CD-Rs on my ancient XLZ-1050, but my
> wife can't play ANY CD-Rs in here '98 Volvo car stereo.
>
There is more than one reason why certain players won't play CD-R's.
Sometimes the reasons are optical, sometimes they are due to errors
in the firmware in the player.
ja...@jacko.co.uk
i have a DVD Player (Shinco) that will play dvd,vdc,cd,and mp3. BUT to
read vcd or mp3s that i burn, it has to be on a PRINCO cdr disk because
of the colour on the burn side.
Where the hell can i get them in the UK!
I can't find them anywhere.
Anyone help me out
thanks
jacko
In article <bU%a4.36447$kX4.1...@news.rdc2.mi.home.com>,
"Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> "EQ" <eloquent_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3hYa4.1196$B6....@quark.idirect.com...
> >
> > Tom Pohorsky <to...@netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:84gsog$ae9$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > In article <84gn8i$9j4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EKIM
> <eki...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > >In article <84bag5$14j$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > > > to...@netcom.com (Tom Pohorsky) wrote:
> > > >> I've been having great luck with an IDE CD-R. But a couple
> of
> > > >> copies I've gotten from a friend with a Stand-alone unit
> didn't
> > > >> sound identical to the master. I actually setup a double
> blind
> > > >> test and was able to detect the copy (the high's were a tiny
> bit
> > > >> rougher). I'm pretty confident this is not a jitter problem,
> > > >> as I was actually able to hear it, though subtly.
> >
> > I've yet to hear a CDR copy that sound AS GOOD as the master
> source.
>
> Blind tests, anyone?
>
> > With CD burners, there's the ECC problem.
>
> Hmm, it works and corrects data with reasonable numbers of errors
> back to the precise original data. You call this a "problem"?
>
> > Has anyone verified if using proper
> > 'offsets' in Exact Audio Copy produce exact copies.
>
> Sure, many times. Exact copies are possible, but it takes 2 things:
>
> (1) A good CD-R drive to write the disc.
>
> (2) A good CDROM to read the disc reliably.
>
> (1) and (2) can be the same drive, particularly if the drive is made
> by Plexstor.
>
> IMO, EAC is "pickier" than necessary, however because it complains
> if the number of zero bytes at the start and end of the track are
> right. Who really cares if there is 2.0000 or 2.0000 or 1.9999
> seconds of digital silence between the tracks?
>
> AudioGrabber checksums are good enough for audio.
>
> >This seems to be the
> > only hope. With standalones, there are too many issues, perhaps
> coax vs.
> > optical cables, higher jitter than comp. burners
>
> The digital outputs on the standalone readers I've tested are
> nothing to write home about, either.
>
> > > >But it very well may be jitter.....the reflective surface of
> different
> > > >blanks are what could be the problem, NOT THE DATA! I've
> compared many
> > > >different blanks..blue,green, yellow, gold, silver......Silver
> always
> > > >sounds closest or maybe even better than original. the Blue or
> green
> > > >blanks kinda suck for audio. Some gold are excellent.
> >
> > The Verbatim blues sound the best to Gramophone in the UK.
>
> My test for CD writers is to grab some Princo discs - absolute
> bottom of the pile, in most people's book. And I don't use just any
> Princo discs, I use the cheapest bulk-packed drek I can find.
>
> I then burn up some discs with test tones.
>
> I check the tracks for digital accuacy vis-a-vis the original files
> they were burned from with AudioGrabber.
>
> I put the CD's on a cheap CD player and test the recovered audio for
> general technical quality, using tests like those posted at
> http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/ . If the player performs like it
> should, particularly in the jitter test, then I consider the CD-R to
> be "acceptable". I also test on a "good" CD player. Same criteria
> apply.
>
> Then I take the CD's down to my main system and listen to them. I do
> things in this order only because all the testing stuff is on the
> same floor as the place where I assemble machines.