🚀 go-pugleaf

Peter Clinch wrote in message <36753AE1.BFA1F49F@dundee.ac.uk>...
>Kit-pui Wong wrote:
>>
>> Some people with "golden ears" claim that there are great
>> differences between an original CD and its digital CDR copy.
>>
>> Is there any **theoretical** ground about the difference ?
>> In digital world, information on CD are always O's and 1's.
>> A digital copy of an audio CD should store the same stream
>> of 0's and 1's and therefore produce exactly identical
>> output.

>But you don't get 0s and 1s out of the replay chain, you get analogue
>waves.  It is *possible*, I think, for a CD-R to have different jitter
>characteristics to an original, and jitter alters the analogue wave you
>get out.

Jitter is one of those hocus-pocus words that people like to throw out when
they don't know anyting else to say. I've never seen a reliable listening
tests that nailed an audible problem with a CD player down to just jitter.
Analog bigots whine about jitter, and then turn a deaf ear to 10, 100, or 1000
times more jitter in their precious tapes and vinyl.


>Assuming a difference is there (and I'm not saying it is: I don't know),
>I'd think you'd need pretty serious kit capable of *very* good
>resoltyion to notice it.

Actually, measuring Jitter is not exactly rocket science. You just need a good
FFT. Most jitter that I observe in digital audio equipment is at such low
levels to be trivial, and its source is ususally due to something like a
crappy job of isolating the power supply from the signal-handling circuits.

CD transports have to remove relatively monumental amounts of jitter to work
at all. The major source of it is the fact that the bits come off a slightly
eccentric disc rotating at several 100 rpm. If jitter due to spacing of bits
on the disc were a problem, it would show up at frequencies related to the
rotation of the disc, and vary from point to point on the disc, as its
rotation speed varies. Doesn't seem to happen.

Kit-pui Wong wrote:
> 
> Some people with "golden ears" claim that there are great
> differences between an original CD and its digital CDR copy.
> 
> Is there any **theoretical** ground about the difference ?
> In digital world, information on CD are always O's and 1's.
> A digital copy of an audio CD should store the same stream
> of 0's and 1's and therefore produce exactly identical
> output.

But you don't get 0s and 1s out of the replay chain, you get analogue
waves.  It is *possible*, I think, for a CD-R to have different jitter
characteristics to an original, and jitter alters the analogue wave you
get out.

Assuming a difference is there (and I'm not saying it is: I don't know),
I'd think you'd need pretty serious kit capable of *very* good
resoltyion to notice it.

Pete.
-- 
Peter Clinch			Dundee University & Teaching Hospitals
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637	Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177		Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk	http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Kit-pui Wong wrote in message <753ar1$p8u$1@justice.csc.cuhk.edu.hk>...
>Some people with "golden ears" claim that there are great
>differences between an original CD and its digital CDR copy.

Claims are like a soiled crapper. Anybody can make one, but its no biggie. One
flush and its gone!

Claims with decent support are the only thing that is really worth checking
out.

In article <753ar1$p8u$1@justice.csc.cuhk.edu.hk>, Kit-pui Wong
<kpwong@psy.cuhk.edu.hk> writes
>Some people with "golden ears" claim that there are great 
>differences between an original CD and its digital CDR copy.   

In theory, no, there should be no difference. The definitive way to
prove this is to first make a copy of a CD, and then get a favourite CD
player and hook the digital output up to a computer with a digital input
(SP/DIF etc). Then sample both the copy and the original and get the
computer to do a comparison. 

I reckon you'll find that they're 99% similar. 

>Is there any **theoretical** ground about the difference ?  
>In digital world, information on CD are always O's and 1's. 
>A digital copy of an audio CD should store the same stream
>of 0's and 1's and therefore produce exactly identical 
>output. 

That's right. Having said that, there are mitigating factors inherent in
the way the digital signal is read from the disc. A dirty disc, or a
poor quality CDR (it would have to be very poor quality) will mean that
the error correction circuit in the CD player has to do more work to
play the CD properly. Some manufacturer's error correction circuits are
better than others. Weirdly, my �200 Pioneer CD deck refused to play a
certain rather badly scratched CD without a lot of skipping, but my
sister's cheapie yucky Amstrad micro system managed it. That's life.

>Then, what makes the differences (if any) ??

People hearing a difference because they are expecting one. I get a
great laugh bringing audiophiles around to a friend's studio and running
their favourite LP's through an analogue-digital converter hooked up
directly to a digital-analogue converter with a bypass switch, and
seeing if they can spot when they're getting the "pure" signal or the
digitized one. Most of the time they get it wrong.

-- 
        Brendan Heading
http://www.heading.demon.co.uk (updated every Thursday)
ICQ : 24010538
(please remove obvious spamguard to reply by email)

"The appeal to patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"

Brendan Heading wrote:
> 
> In article <753ar1$p8u$1@justice.csc.cuhk.edu.hk>, Kit-pui Wong
> <kpwong@psy.cuhk.edu.hk> writes
> >Some people with "golden ears" claim that there are great
> >differences between an original CD and its digital CDR copy.
> 
> In theory, no, there should be no difference. The definitive way to
> prove this is to first make a copy of a CD, and then get a favourite CD
> player and hook the digital output up to a computer with a digital input
> (SP/DIF etc). Then sample both the copy and the original and get the
> computer to do a comparison.
> 
> I reckon you'll find that they're 99% similar.
>

I saw a posting on an audio newsgroup a couple of years
back when someone was testing the benefits of green ink
or whatever.  He did a bitwise comparison.

He stated that there was a difference of *not one
single binary digit* in the whole CD, when played with
and without snake oil.  [A one percent error in digital 
electronics would be regarded as severe malfunction]

Cheers,
Martin

In article <367551ED.6E6CB492@virgin.net>, Martin Ackroyd
<martin.ackroyd@virgin.net> writes
>He stated that there was a difference of *not one
>single binary digit* in the whole CD, when played with
>and without snake oil.  [A one percent error in digital 
>electronics would be regarded as severe malfunction]

Thanks for the info. 

-- 
        Brendan Heading
http://www.heading.demon.co.uk (updated every Thursday)
ICQ : 24010538
(please remove obvious spamguard to reply by email)

"The appeal to patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"

Could you made sure your CD reader could 100% read the CD without
error?  If yes (ie.100% correct), why there are so expansive CD
transport on selling?  If No (have error), than even CDR 100% correct,
It still have error signal Recorded, then sound different.

Audio CD format has no error correction such as the "Check sum" of
Computer CD ROM.  So, even error, the transport (or reader) don't know
and will no correction made.  Only the DAC will check for reasonable
signal and correct it.

I have tested it before. It is a big different, which no need AB
repeat comparing.  It's quality similar to the cheap illegal CD clone.

Chung

"Arny Kr�ger" wrote:

> Chris Cotellini wrote in message <36764B19.A08DFB6F@interstroom.nl>...
> >Well, if you copy from a bad cd, the copy will sound bad too.... I heard
> >a difference between copy and original -> an occasional "pop" in the
> >sound, probably a burn error. Thus the quality (this DOES effect the
> >sound, doesn't it?) is lower than the original without the pop.
> >
>
> The pops are almost always due to data loss. This usually happens when the CD
> is read.

Then why isn't the "pop" sound there when you play it on the pc cd-writer? If it
is a read error and not a write error you should hear it when you play the
original disc. If you don't hear the faults when you play the original cd (on the
burner) it can't be a read error, can it? Or does the copy process somehow make
these faults more noticable? Does this have to do with the error correction of a
drive? Does a cd-writer use error correction? I don't know...
If the copy is an EXACT copy, these pops wouldn't be there. I also heard that the
older (slow single/double speed) drives are better in reading audio tracks, is
that true?

Gr,
Chris Cotellini

Chris Cotellini <ccotellini@interstroom.nl> wrote in article
<3678CAFC.985389AC@interstroom.nl>...
> 
> Then why isn't the "pop" sound there when you play it on the pc
cd-writer? If it
> is a read error and not a write error you should hear it when you play
the
> original disc. If you don't hear the faults when you play the original cd
(on the
> burner) it can't be a read error, can it?

Most of the time, it is a "read" error.
Save some audio tracks with "pop" sound to wave files & hear the wave files.
You will then hear the "pop" sound.
"Play" & "Reading" CD's signal is different process.

After experience of "pop" sound in several CD-R from direct dubbing of CD, I save track as wave files & do audition first & get
CD-R free of "pop" sound.

Lee HC

Chris Cotellini wrote in message <3678CAFC.985389AC@interstroom.nl>...
>
>
>"Arny Kr�ger" wrote:
>
>> Chris Cotellini wrote in message <36764B19.A08DFB6F@interstroom.nl>...
>> >Well, if you copy from a bad cd, the copy will sound bad too.... I heard
>> >a difference between copy and original -> an occasional "pop" in the
>> >sound, probably a burn error. Thus the quality (this DOES effect the
>> >sound, doesn't it?) is lower than the original without the pop.
>> >
>>
>> The pops are almost always due to data loss. This usually happens when the
CD
>> is read.
>
>Then why isn't the "pop" sound there when you play it on the pc cd-writer?

Because you are not recording it at that time, and you are playing it at 1x.

The worst case of clicks and pops I've encountered happen when making a high
speed (2x or 4x) copy.

Most CD players are unexpectedly limited in their ability to play an audio CD
at speeds higher than 1x. I know of many CD players that run at a real-world
15-20x for reading data, but are reliable only at speeds of 6x and below for
reading audio tracks. It is not unusual for a 8 or 16x CDROM reader to be
limited to 1x or 2x for audio.

>Does a cd-writer use error correction? I don't know...

Audio CD's are read with error detection, and on-the-fly error correction.

>If the copy is an EXACT copy, these pops wouldn't be there.

That is my experience.


>I also heard that the
>older (slow single/double speed) drives are better in reading audio tracks,
is
>that true?

Very false. The current consensus seems to be that the best CDROM's for
reading audio are the Plexstor 32x SCSI and the Panasonic/Creative Labs 24-36x
IDE drives. The Plexstor is very reliable in general and can be absolutely
counted on to read most audio discs at speeds up to about 10x. The
CL/Panasonic is pretty reliable up to about 7x. I have audio discs that my
Plex will only read reliably at 1x.

Lee HC wrote in message <01be29a4$45dadfe0$LocalHost@default>...
>
>After experience of "pop" sound in several CD-R from direct dubbing of CD, I
save track as wave files & do audition first & get
>CD-R free of "pop" sound.


This works. Whenever possible, I use software that makes checksums (I.e.,
audiograbber). It is my experience that if a disc is being read correctly with
my Plexstor, the checksums will be consistent. So, when in doubt, I simply
read the disc several times, and clean it until the checksums are stable.

In article <3678CAFC.985389AC@interstroom.nl>,
Chris Cotellini  <ccotellini@interstroom.nl> wrote:

>> The pops are almost always due to data loss. This usually happens when the CD
>> is read.
>
>Then why isn't the "pop" sound there when you play it on the pc cd-writer? If it
>is a read error and not a write error you should hear it when you play the
>original disc. If you don't hear the faults when you play the original cd (on the
>burner) it can't be a read error, can it? Or does the copy process somehow make
>these faults more noticable?

The "reading" side of the copying process makes the faults more
audible, because (on many drives) it bypasses the important "error
concealment" process.

What happens fairly often is this:

-  There's a scratch, dust blob, or manufacturing defect on the
original CD.

-  The problem causes an error burst which is too severe for the
two-level Red Book C1/C2 error-correction algorithm to deal with.
After error corection is performed, the data in the sample buffer
still has one or more bit errors in it. The C1/C2 error corrector has
flagged each sample with errors as "bad".

-  If you're _playing_ the CD (on a CD player or via the CD-ROM
drive), the player/drive's audio circuitry "sees" the bad-data flag on
the bad samples.  It activates its "error concealment" circuit, which
either interpolates between good samples on either side of the error,
or (in really severe cases) mutes the analog output for a few
milliseconds.  In either case, your ears don't notice the error.

-  If you're _reading_ the CD ("ripping" the data to a .WAV file), the
drive delivers the samples from its buffer, even though one or more
samples are marked "bad".  It doesn't interpolate or mute the bad
sample before giving you the data.  You end up with a very sharp
(one-sample-wide) "spike" in the data, which sounds like a sharp
"tick" or "pop".  When you burn a CD-R (or make an MP-3) the incorrect
data is burned accurately - when you play back the CD-R, the "bad
data" flag isn't set, and so your CD player reproduces the glitch
quite faithfully.
  
A lot of CD-ROM drives (and in particular the less-expensive ones)
have this sort of problem - their firmware doesn't implement audio
error concealment when reading digital-audio tracks.  To "rip"
reliabily using drives of this sort, you'll probably need a software
ripper which implements some form of scratch detection and
concealment... doing in your PC what the drive's own firmware isn't
doing.  A few years ago, when doing the CD-ROM drive for the 3DO
videogame system, I had to insist on a drive firmware revision from
the CD-ROM vendor - they weren't doing error concealment, and we
didn't have the CPU horsepower to do a decent job of scratch removal
via software methods.

Other CD-ROM drives do an excellent job of error concealment, or
automatically re-read audio data to try to do a better job of C1/C2
error correction.  Plextor SCSI CD-ROM drives have a good reputation
in this respect.


--
Dave Platt                                        dplatt@feghoot.ml.org
Visit the Jade Warrior home page:   http://feghoot.ml.org/jade-warrior/
  I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
     boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

In article <1C5AE5CA0F2F9ADC.A0C451A2A5364D00.E599AFEBD487605B@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
Chung <kclee@hk.gin.net> wrote:
>How the CD Transport could make sure the data is 100% corrected on
>real time error correction.  Will it read again on error?  I don't
>think so.
>
>So, this type of "error correction" could only provide
>acceptable/reasonable approximated signal output.  I say it is not
>error correction.  It is signal approximation only.
>
>May be Arny's suggestion, assisted by special software could make sure
>error free.  But General CD reader could not.

Mr. Chung's conclusions and assertions are simply 100% wrong. Normal audio
CD has very sophisticated real time error detection AND correction
algorithms in place nd has since it was first introduced. He says it is
not error correction, yet he has NO idea what he is tlking about. He
mistakes error correction (which is in place on ALL reads from ALL CD's by
EVERY CD player in existance) with error concealment (which is ONLY in
place if ALL the error correction breaks down).

We would again point Mr. CHunk to texts suuch as Pohlmann's "Principles of
Digital Audio," Chapter 5 and Chapter 9. There he can learn, hopefully,
that what he thinks and what he is so sur of is simply not correct.

-- 
|            Dick Pierce            |
|   Professional Audio Development  |
|   1-781/826-4953  Voice and FAX   |
|       DPierce@world.std.com       |

Chung wrote in message
<1C5AE5CA0F2F9ADC.A0C451A2A5364D00.E599AFEBD487605B@library-proxy.airnews.net>
...
>How the CD Transport could make sure the data is 100% corrected on
>real time error correction.  Will it read again on error?  I don't
>think so.
>
>So, this type of "error correction" could only provide
>acceptable/reasonable approximated signal output.  I say it is not
>error correction.  It is signal approximation only.


There are two kinds of errors on audio cd's. "Correctable" and "Concealable".

The correctable errors are precisely numerically corrected using redundant
data off the disc.

Arny Kr�ger (arnyk@flash.net) wrote:

: Chung wrote in message
: <1C5AE5CA0F2F9ADC.A0C451A2A5364D00.E599AFEBD487605B@library-proxy.airnews.net>
: ...
: >How the CD Transport could make sure the data is 100% corrected on
: >real time error correction.  Will it read again on error?  I don't
: >think so.
: >
: >So, this type of "error correction" could only provide
: >acceptable/reasonable approximated signal output.  I say it is not
: >error correction.  It is signal approximation only.


: There are two kinds of errors on audio cd's. "Correctable" and "Concealable".

: The correctable errors are precisely numerically corrected using redundant
: data off the disc.

slightly incorrect.. i believe the errors are determined and corrected by 
error correction/detection parity codes such as hamming codes. up to 2 possibly three bits can be corrected for in any 8 bit data read. (actually 12 or 13 bits (with parity))

in addition, hamming codes can be used on any word bit length.

In a most eagerly-awaited article <75bqkf$nfa$1@remarQ.com>, Dave Platt
<dplatt@feghoot.ml.org> opines for the betterment of creation
>When you burn a CD-R (or make an MP-3) the incorrect
>data is burned accurately - when you play back the CD-R, the "bad
>data" flag isn't set, and so your CD player reproduces the glitch
>quite faithfully.

You obviously know what you are talking about. How does the 'bad data'
flag get unset? I would have thought that a 'dumb copier' would not
alter any of the incoming bitstream.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. You can fool all of the people some of the time, but 
you can't please some of the people any of the time.

In article <75e4j7$bon$2@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Stefan Kozak <skozak@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:

>Arny Kr�ger (arnyk@flash.net) wrote:
>: There are two kinds of errors on audio cd's. "Correctable" and "Concealable".
>
>: The correctable errors are precisely numerically corrected using redundant
>: data off the disc.
>
>slightly incorrect.. i believe the errors are determined and corrected by 
>error correction/detection parity codes such as hamming codes. up to 2 possibly three bits can be corrected for in any 8 bit data read. (actually 12 or 13 bits (with parity))
>
>in addition, hamming codes can be used on any word bit length.

Well, both ways of saying it are correct... the error-detection codes
can be considered to be "redundant data".

The actual coding is a two-level cross-interleaved Reed-Solomon
algorithm.  It's capable of completely correcting error bursts of up
to 3874 bits, and can handle bursts of up to 13282 bits by
interpolation (i.e. bursts of up to this length will result in an
uncorrectable error in one sample, surrounded by samples which are not
in error, and thus a linear or other interpolation between the valid
samples can conceal the error pretty effectively).

The interleaving is an important part of the error correction process.
By interleaving the data from multiple frames before it's recorded on
the disc (and de-interleaving it when it's read back), the algorithm
"spreads out" the effect of an error burst.  Instead of having all of
the data bits from one sample wiped out by a divot, you end up having
one or two bits damaged in each of many samples, spread across quite a
few blocks.  Since the number of scrambled bits in each block is
small, the redundency inherent in the Reed-Solomon error correction
codes can be used calculate the original values of these bits,
resultin in accurate correction of the error.

-- 
Dave Platt                                        dplatt@feghoot.ml.org
Visit the Jade Warrior home page:   http://feghoot.ml.org/jade-warrior/
  I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
     boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

>You obviously know what you are talking about. How does the 'bad data'
>flag get unset? I would have thought that a 'dumb copier' would not
>alter any of the incoming bitstream.

The "bad data" flag isn't part of the primary datastream... it isn't
part of the 16-bits-per-sample audio data.  It's auxiliary
information, calculated by the CD player hardware.

When you use a CD-ROM drive to read audio data from a CD, you get the
audio data (2352 bytes per block).  You do not, unfortunately, get the
"bad data" flags associated with the samples in the block.  As far as
I can tell, there's no standard for transferring a combined "data and
flag" data across the SCSI or IDE/ATAPI bus.

So, the "bad data" flag is lost at this point in the process.  At
best, you might get a status result from the READ command which tells
you "there's a bad sample somewhere in the data you just read"... but
I have yet to see this sort of feature actually implemented.

To make matters worse... when you "burn" the CD-R, you send the
2352-byte audio blocks to the drive via SCSI or ATAPI, and the drive
calculates a _new_ C1/C2/interleaved block structure and burns it to
the disc.  There's no way (as far as I know) to tell the CD-ROM drive
"Here, burn this sector of data... and, oh, by the way, I want you to
deliberately damage the CIRC data so that the following set of samples
will read back as 'bad' and be interpolated."

I'm sure there are some professional recorders which can be used to
burn arbitrary interleaved data to a CD-R (in order to deliberately
introduce errors for testing purposes) but this doesn't seem to be a
feature of standard consumer drives... and there's not really any good
reason to want to do it, anyhow.

So, the PC never sees the "bad data" flag, and couldn't pass it along
to the CD recorder even if it did.

-- 
Dave Platt                                        dplatt@feghoot.ml.org
Visit the Jade Warrior home page:   http://feghoot.ml.org/jade-warrior/
  I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
     boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

In a most eagerly-awaited article <75efpk$iph$1@remarQ.com>, Dave Platt
<dplatt@feghoot.ml.org> opines for the betterment of creation
>The "bad data" flag isn't part of the primary datastream... it isn't
>part of the 16-bits-per-sample audio data.  It's auxiliary
>information, calculated by the CD player hardware.
[snip]
Thank you.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. You can fool all of the people some of the time, but 
you can't please some of the people any of the time.

How the CD Transport could make sure the data is 100% corrected on
real time error correction.  Will it read again on error?  I don't
think so.

So, this type of "error correction" could only provide
acceptable/reasonable approximated signal output.  I say it is not
error correction.  It is signal approximation only.

May be Arny's suggestion, assisted by special software could make sure
error free.  But General CD reader could not.

Chung

kclee@hk.gin.net (Chung) writes:

> Yap, I don't know any Theory and Technique of CD format.  Thankyou for
> your correction.  What I thinking in logical way only.  But if the
> error correction is 100%, all transport could read 100% correct, mean
> all transport sound same!!.  So, why need expansive transport???  and
> why the supporting pin under transport affect sound???  Also, why
> different CD material/coating give different sound???

Jitter! Simple explanation would be that some samples arrive earlier 
to the DAC and same are delayed. The error correction can only make 
sure that the data are read correct. All the expensive circuitry try 
to eliminate the effect of jitter. So simple is it! 

-- 
Bob Velkov
Bob.Velkov@par.univie.ac.at 

"Arny Kr�ger" <arnyk@flash.net> writes:

> Felix M.C. Li wrote in message <754i43$m7s$1@unix2.glink.net.hk>...
> >Kit-pui Wong wrote:
> >>
> >> Some people with "golden ears" claim that there are great
> >> differences between an original CD and its digital CDR copy.
> >>
> >
> >I haven't heard anybody here claimed themselves to have a pair of
> >"Golden ears". And it doesn't need a "Golden ear" to hear it.
> >
> >Many cheap CD Recorders cannot make a good copy of the original, I
> >know my Ricoh is not good in doing so. I've heard some from Plextor
> >and they are much better than the ones from my Ricoh. Some people
> >said Yamaha is also very good.
> >
> 
> 
> I have a Plexstor 32 spin reader and a Plexstor 4x8 writer, and they are
> capable of making bit-exact copies. I do it routinely.
> 
> I also have a Mitsumi 2x8 writer, and it makes exact copies of the audio discs
> it writes. Reading? a different matter...

Yes, almost each one writer produces a real good copy. The hard and real 
important work is done on the reading side. Plextor drives (except the 6x, 
but all other, i.e. 12x, 12/20x, 32x) prodece bit-by-bit exact reads each 
time. There are recently some other newer IDE CD-ROM drives that reads 
audio good (the problem is the missing filesystem) but I only have heard 
of such, no personal experience. 


-- 
Bob Velkov
Bob.Velkov@par.univie.ac.at 

Brendan Heading <brendan@NOSPAMheading.demon.co.uk> writes:

> In article <CUqd2.2714$Bc5.6097@news.flash.net>, Arny Kr�ger
> <arnyk@flash.net> writes
> 
> >It turns out that this is an incorrect presumption. It is possible to measure
> >a digital output and determine whether it is a perfect bit copy of the input.
> >Such investigations show that some digital outputs are exact, and others are
> >not.
> 
> And of course, much of this is academic anyway. Yes, there is little
> difference between the digital output signals of the respective CD
> readers; 

The data isn't taken from the digital out of the CD-ROM reader but extracted 
over the SCSI (data) bus. A digital output will introduce jitter making a 
computer setup CD-R copy the better one then the one done on a CD player 
and CD-R standalone audio recorder. 

-- 
Bob Velkov
Bob.Velkov@par.univie.ac.at 

Stephen Wong <smwong@galaxy-publishers.com.hk> writes:

> Well, some netter suggested that different brands of CDR drive will make
> a difference.  But usually, the trick is in the drive you use to "READ"
> the audio CD.  Coz' Digital Audio Extraction is not properly done on
> most CDROM drive.  Let me explain, most CDROM will read an audio CD and
> output the digital stream to its (usually shabby) DAC in plenty good
> sense.  But, when you want the digital stream to be transferred on the
> IDE/SCSI bus, it will be a different story.  If you cannot get a
> verbatim copy of digital data from the original CD, no matter how good a
> CDR drive you have, you cannot make a perfect copy.

Well said! 

-- 
Bob Velkov
Bob.Velkov@par.univie.ac.at 

"Graham Gibson" <GibsonG@logica.com> writes:

> It is possible for a CDR to have lower jitter (on the
> disc) than the CD it was recorded from due to the
> pre-defined "timing tracks" that exist on CDRs.
> 
> High levels of jitter give the CD player servos a
> hard time, which may result in audio degradation
> via the power supply, depending on the player.
> 
> In *theory*, a CDR can sound better than the
> original, but whether it does *in practice* is a
> much more contentious issue. :-)

Totally agree with this! 


-- 
Bob Velkov
Bob.Velkov@par.univie.ac.at 

Chris Cotellini <ccotellini@interstroom.nl> writes:

> "Arny Kr�ger" wrote:
> 
> > Chris Cotellini wrote in message <36764B19.A08DFB6F@interstroom.nl>...
> > >Well, if you copy from a bad cd, the copy will sound bad too.... I heard
> > >a difference between copy and original -> an occasional "pop" in the
> > >sound, probably a burn error. Thus the quality (this DOES effect the
> > >sound, doesn't it?) is lower than the original without the pop.
> > >
> >
> > The pops are almost always due to data loss. This usually happens when the CD
> > is read.
> 
> Then why isn't the "pop" sound there when you play it on the pc cd-writer? If it
> is a read error and not a write error you should hear it when you play the
> original disc. If you don't hear the faults when you play the original cd (on the
> burner) it can't be a read error, can it? Or does the copy process somehow make

Because when you *play* the original on the burner it's played with 
1x speed and DA converted before feeded to the soundcard. When you 
record it to WAV on the HDD, the data are *ripped* off and transfered 
over the data bus to HDD. Completely different things.

-- 
Bob Velkov
Bob.Velkov@par.univie.ac.at 

I have been following the theory in this thread with interest, but what
about the practicalities?
Is there any consensus as to what equipment and/or software is needed to
effectively make good copies of CD to CDR?
And what about vinyl? It would be nice to copy vinyl to CDR, for the
convenience of the medium - you cannot play vinyl in the car!
For the latter, I have found it very convenient to copy vinyl on to a NICAM
VCR, which makes it simple to get on the PC via the sound card, but what
about software to break up the material into tracks?
My Creative 32x CD ROM which sounded like a helicopter on take-off has just
failed after only six months and I have replaced it with the much quieter
Creative 36MX  model, so I would be reluctant to replace that with a SCSI
model, so are there any IDE CD-R/RW writers out there that really do what
they are supposed to? How about CD - IDE to CDR/RW - SCSI?
Only 2 of my own circle of friends and acquaintances have CD-R/RW hardware,
and both have been beset with problems. One has 2 Yamaha CD-RW writers but
experiences far too many copy failures for this to be a successful
combination. The other has a Philips CD-RW and the least said about that the
better.
So come on, what does work?
Graham Mayor

Bob Velkov wrote in message ...
>"Arny Kr�ger" <arnyk@flash.net> writes:
>
>> Felix M.C. Li wrote in message <754i43$m7s$1@unix2.glink.net.hk>...
>> >Kit-pui Wong wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Some people with "golden ears" claim that there are great
>> >> differences between an original CD and its digital CDR copy.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I haven't heard anybody here claimed themselves to have a pair of
>> >"Golden ears". And it doesn't need a "Golden ear" to hear it.
>> >
>> >Many cheap CD Recorders cannot make a good copy of the original, I
>> >know my Ricoh is not good in doing so. I've heard some from Plextor
>> >and they are much better than the ones from my Ricoh. Some people
>> >said Yamaha is also very good.
>> >
>>
>>
>> I have a Plexstor 32 spin reader and a Plexstor 4x8 writer, and they are
>> capable of making bit-exact copies. I do it routinely.
>>
>> I also have a Mitsumi 2x8 writer, and it makes exact copies of the audio
discs
>> it writes. Reading? a different matter...
>
>Yes, almost each one writer produces a real good copy. The hard and real
>important work is done on the reading side. Plextor drives (except the 6x,
>but all other, i.e. 12x, 12/20x, 32x) prodece bit-by-bit exact reads each
>time. There are recently some other newer IDE CD-ROM drives that reads
>audio good (the problem is the missing filesystem) but I only have heard
>of such, no personal experience.
>


I've tested some of those new IDE drives, and while they are greatly improved,
I'm not ditching my Plexstor for them!

In article <9AC33C397E6F7EEC.EB514CB227F8BAFB.F49C9B9A4FBF795C@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
Chung <kclee@hk.gin.net> wrote:
>Yap, I don't know any Theory and Technique of CD format.  Thankyou for
>your correction.  What I thinking in logical way only.  

How is ignoring the facts logical?

>But if the
>error correction is 100%, all transport could read 100% correct, mean
>all transport sound same!!. 

Bot if the transports show iming, not data errors, and not if the DAC
clock is tightly coupled to those timing errors (a sign of a poorly
designed DAC).

> So, why need expansive transport???  

If the issue is to extract data without errors, in fact, many less
expensive transports do it better then some expensive ones. So, no, to
extract data error free, you do NOT need and expensive transport.

>and why the supporting pin under transport affect sound???

Does it? You assume it does but wht proof is there that it sounds
different?

> Also, why different CD material/coating give different sound???

Does it? You assume it does but what proof is there that it sounds
different?

YOU claimed that audio CD transports do not have error correction. you 
did't say anything about sound, you said audio CD transports do not
have error correction. That statement, all by itself, is just plain wrong. 
I challenge you to show us signle audio CD transport thhat does not do
error correction. The CD CANNOT BE READ without pplying error correction
because the error correction daa is embedded in the data stream and ALL CD
players MUST apply the error correction to get the data, or the will get
NO data, wether there are errors or not. 

YOUR claim was that audio CD transports do not have error correction. YOUR
claim is WRONG. It's that simple.

Now, if you want to start asking questions like hy does this or that make
a difference, that's a different set of questions altogether. And if you
want to make claims that different colors or differnt "pins" sound
different, well, that's YOUR claim, and YOU need to provide some credible
support that it does.

We have already seen how credible one of your claims is. Remember, the one
where you claimed that audio CD transports have no error correction? You
know, the claim that was wrong?


-- 
|            Dick Pierce            |
|   Professional Audio Development  |
|   1-781/826-4953  Voice and FAX   |
|       DPierce@world.std.com       |

>I have been following the theory in this thread with interest, but what
>about the practicalities?
>Is there any consensus as to what equipment and/or software is needed to
>effectively make good copies of CD to CDR?

I've had good results using a Ricoh MP6201S as a burner.  For reading
data off of the CD, I've used any of several different CD-ROM drives
(the Ricoh itself sometimes, an old Sony ATAPI drive sometimes, and a
24x Teac ATAPI drive sometimes).  The best Unix-based CD-reading
program seems to be cdparanoia - it's quite good at handling drives
which have imprecise audio-block addressing (high-level "jitter") and
has scratch detection and recovery capabilities as well.

I've used cdrecord 1.6 for track-at-once burning, and cdrdao for
audio disc-at-once burning.  Both work fine with the Ricoh.

>And what about vinyl? It would be nice to copy vinyl to CDR, for the
>convenience of the medium - you cannot play vinyl in the car!

You'll want a _good_ sound card.  The cheap ones (and some expensive
ones) have distortion and noise levels which you'll probably find
unacceptable.  There are some very useful sound-card tests to be found
at www.pcavtech.com - check 'em out.  The Ensoniq AudioPCI and clones
thereof seem to be a good choice - good performance for moderate price.

In my own vinyl-to-CD-R transferring work, I use an outboard
analog-to-digital converter, piped into the digital input of a Turtle
Beach Fiji sound card.

>For the latter, I have found it very convenient to copy vinyl on to a NICAM
>VCR, which makes it simple to get on the PC via the sound card, but what
>about software to break up the material into tracks?

I use xcdrdao - it's still in alpha test but is quite functional.  It
lets you create a DAO cue sheet for the "cdrdao" program.  You can
take data from one or more .WAV files, view the data waveform, and set
markers to indicate the track start points (including the pregap) and
index-number changes.

If you're stuck in the world of commercial Billville software, check
out Adaptec's Spin Doctor.  It was designed specifically for the job
of transferring LPs to CD-R.

>My Creative 32x CD ROM which sounded like a helicopter on take-off has just
>failed after only six months and I have replaced it with the much quieter
>Creative 36MX  model, so I would be reluctant to replace that with a SCSI
>model, so are there any IDE CD-R/RW writers out there that really do what
>they are supposed to? How about CD - IDE to CDR/RW - SCSI?

I don't recommend doing it this way.  It's generally better to
read the CD to disk as a .WAV file (an operation which can be done
non-real-time, allowing plenty of time for read retries, scratch
detection and correction, etc.), and then burn to CD-R in a separate
operation.  It takes longer, but there's much less chance of creating
a coaster due to a data underrun in the reading process.

--
Dave Platt                                        dplatt@feghoot.ml.org
Visit the Jade Warrior home page:   http://feghoot.ml.org/jade-warrior/
  I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
     boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Richard D Pierce wrote:

 
> We would again point Mr. CHunk to texts suuch as Pohlmann's "Principles of
> Digital Audio," Chapter 5 and Chapter 9. There he can learn, hopefully,
> that what he thinks and what he is so sur of is simply not correct.

who's to say the book in itself is corect? otherwise why would people
bother with 96khz or hdcd and all that? 

kent

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Anything mentioned here actually *is* the opinion of tdv.aus.org.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Arny Kr�ger" wrote:
> 
> Kit-pui Wong wrote in message <753ar1$p8u$1@justice.csc.cuhk.edu.hk>...
> >Some people with "golden ears" claim that there are great
> >differences between an original CD and its digital CDR copy.
> 
> Claims are like a soiled crapper. Anybody can make one, but its no biggie. One
> flush and its gone!
> 
> Claims with decent support are the only thing that is really worth checking
> out.

and opinions are like assholes- everyones got one.... the only way to
tell is to listen.... if it sounds good great.... if it sounds bad, fix
it... 
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Anything mentioned here actually *is* the opinion of tdv.aus.org.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yap, I don't know any Theory and Technique of CD format.  Thankyou for
your correction.  What I thinking in logical way only.  But if the
error correction is 100%, all transport could read 100% correct, mean
all transport sound same!!.  So, why need expansive transport???  and
why the supporting pin under transport affect sound???  Also, why
different CD material/coating give different sound???

Chung

kclee@hk.gin.net (Chung) writes:

> Could you made sure your CD reader could 100% read the CD without
> error?  If yes (ie.100% correct), why there are so expansive CD
> transport on selling?  If No (have error), than even CDR 100% correct,

A scsi drive, say a Plextor which has a built in hardware (positioning) 
jitter correction could extract data 100% exact each time. The simpliest 
way to verify this is would be to get a programm called feurio from 
http://www.feurio.de/ and start the three different tests available 
there (they are repeated as many times as you want and auto-compare). 

On the other side a data extraction is something different (buffered copy) 
than a real time play (on a CD transport). On the CD transport expensive 
components have to assure that each sample arrives in an exact clock on 
the digital out. A computer drive just reads all the samples and stores 
them, no matter clock and speed -- only requirement is a very accurate 
laser pickup positioning. 

If you try to *play* a CD in the same computer drive it wont sound as 
good as on the transport because of the bad timings (jitter) itroduced 
on its cheap built in DAC. Put the same disc on the transport and you 
will hear a big difference. 


-- 
Bob Velkov
Bob.Velkov@par.univie.ac.at 

DPierce@world.std.com (Richard D Pierce) writes:

> In article <1C5AE5CA0F2F9ADC.A0C451A2A5364D00.E599AFEBD487605B@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
> Chung <kclee@hk.gin.net> wrote:
> >How the CD Transport could make sure the data is 100% corrected on
> >real time error correction.  Will it read again on error?  I don't
> >think so.
> >
> >So, this type of "error correction" could only provide
> >acceptable/reasonable approximated signal output.  I say it is not
> >error correction.  It is signal approximation only.
> >
> >May be Arny's suggestion, assisted by special software could make sure
> >error free.  But General CD reader could not.
> 
> Mr. Chung's conclusions and assertions are simply 100% wrong. Normal audio
> CD has very sophisticated real time error detection AND correction
> algorithms in place nd has since it was first introduced. He says it is
> not error correction, yet he has NO idea what he is tlking about. He
> mistakes error correction (which is in place on ALL reads from ALL CD's by
> EVERY CD player in existance) with error concealment (which is ONLY in
> place if ALL the error correction breaks down).

Very good said, yeah! 


-- 
Bob Velkov
Bob.Velkov@par.univie.ac.at 

Chung wrote in message
<9AC33C397E6F7EEC.EB514CB227F8BAFB.F49C9B9A4FBF795C@library-proxy.airnews.net>
...
>Yap, I don't know any Theory and Technique of CD format.  Thankyou for
>your correction.  What I thinking in logical way only.  But if the
>error correction is 100%, all transport could read 100% correct, mean
>all transport sound same!!.

It's worse than that! All good CD players sound the same!

>So, why need expansive transport???

So why need expensive CD player is an even better question!

In article <367C3063.31B20018@tdv.aus.org>,
Kent Spraggett  <kent@tdv.aus.org> wrote:
>Richard D Pierce wrote:
> 
>> We would again point Mr. CHunk to texts suuch as Pohlmann's "Principles of
>> Digital Audio," Chapter 5 and Chapter 9. There he can learn, hopefully,
>> that what he thinks and what he is so sur of is simply not correct.
>
>who's to say the book in itself is corect? 

Mr. Spraggett, Mr. Chung's claim is that "audio CD players have no error
correction." This is not a claim of preference or of sound or of any other
such thing. He is making an assertion as if it ere technical fact. Nowhere
in the cited references are there claims f whether it sounds good or bad,
rather it is a description of the process of reading data from a CD,
decoding it, applying the deinterleave process and presenting the
recovered and error corrected audio data to the next stage in the playback
process. Don't like Pohlmann? Try the Phillips Red book standard for CD
playback, which says exactly the same thing. If you don't follow the Red
book standard, and, by extension, Pohlmann's description, you will be
utterly unable to read CD's. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a mketter
of an estblished technical standard that you MUST follow if you are to get
ANY data of a CD.

As such, it is a direct refutation of Mr. Chung's technical claims. Have
YOU references to support his assertions and refute the Phillips Red Book
standard and Pohlmann's escription? If so, you have evidence to suggest
that NO CD player in the worlkd can read a single bit of data from a CD.
Wann advance such an assertion?

>otherwise why would people bother with 96khz or hdcd and all that? 

Uh, lemme see: to make more money? Magic? Insecurity? Because some wag at
a magazine who can think out of his own way pontificated so.

You would do well to read the thread more carefully.

-- 
|            Dick Pierce            |
|   Professional Audio Development  |
|   1-781/826-4953  Voice and FAX   |
|       DPierce@world.std.com       |

Kent Spraggett wrote in message <367C3063.31B20018@tdv.aus.org>...
>Richard D Pierce wrote:
>
>
>> We would again point Mr. CHunk to texts suuch as Pohlmann's "Principles of
>> Digital Audio," Chapter 5 and Chapter 9. There he can learn, hopefully,
>> that what he thinks and what he is so sur of is simply not correct.
>
>who's to say the book in itself is corect?

Everybody with a brain who has read it, for openers!

>otherwise why would people bother with 96khz or hdcd and all that?

They address other situations than the one at hand.

Richard D Pierce wrote in message ...

Kent Spraggett wrote:

>>otherwise why would people bother with 96khz or hdcd and all that?
>
>Uh, lemme see: to make more money? Magic? Insecurity? Because some wag at
>a magazine who can think out of his own way pontificated so.

Interesting you should bring this up. As you may know, I've been circulating a
CD-R of some program material recorded over and over again, each time with
fewer bits.  The current edition actually starts with the material recorded at
10 bits and works its way up to 16 bits, a bit at a time. I put the worst
first, with the idea that it would be a good way to train people to know what
the sound of reducing the number of bits rather drastically, is like.

Even I've been surprised with how much trouble people have hearing the
difference that reducing 44/16 to 44/10 creates. I fully expected people to
hear clearly audible differences at 12 bits.

This does rather seriously beg the question: What are the reliably perceptable
benefits of 24/96 and HDCD?

Rather than going on record as saying that building digital equipment with
more than 10 bits is a waste of time, I've provisionally adopted the approach
that there have been other technical benefits that came with adoption of ADC's
and DAC's with higher resolution besides just raw numbers of bits.

Arny Kr�ger heeft geschreven in bericht ...

>Got any suggestions for program material you think would be good for this?


Uhhhm. Roger Waters - Amused to death?

It is supposed to be pretty "high definition/SBM" (I really like when he
starts to talk (A monkey sat on a pile of stone...) right in front of me.
Would be nice to see what happens to such things (and other digital
(Q-sound) effects) if you reduce bitdepth/bandwidth.

>>If I have the time (next year ;-) I will make a CD of my own (according to
>>Arny's suggestion) but will add different Bandwidth's as well (starting
from
>>say 12kHz upto 20kHz). Would be a nice Christmas present for High Endies
>>;-))


>I may get there first! ;-)


Probably, most probably.

Andr� Huisman
New Line licht & geluid
newline@usa.net
http://www.xs4all.nl/~newline/
--- pardon my French, I'm Dutch ---

In a most apposite and timely  article <01be2daf$fced7620$LocalHost@defa
ult>, Lee HC <leehc@glink.net.hk> contributes to the sum of human
endeavour
>
>Arny Kr�ger <arnyk@flash.net> wrote in article 
>> 
>> It's worse than that! All good CD players sound the same!
>
>Arny, are you joking ?

No, of course not. He's just *defined* a 'good' CD player as 'one that
sounds the same as some others that I regard as good.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. You can fool all of the people some of the time, but 
you can't please some of the people any of the time.

In article <bUpf2.1195$S7.1520@news.flash.net>,
"Arny Kr�ger" <arnyk@flash.net> wrote:
>
>Even I've been surprised with how much trouble people have hearing the
>difference that reducing 44/16 to 44/10 creates. I fully expected people to
>hear clearly audible differences at 12 bits.

It's not so surprising when you consider the following...
In the UK, the nationally networked FM radio programming is carried from the
studio to the transmission sites in digital form. The general opinion of the
"golden ears" brigade is that it sounds quite good, and apart from the 15
KHz bandwidth limit is quite close to CD sound if you have a good tuner
(Sequerra etc). But what many of the listeners fail to appreciate is that
the digital data stream is actually encoded as 35 KHz sampling rate, 10 of
14 bit audio (NICAM). That is, only the 10 most significant bits of any
sample are transmitted.
(Actually, 32 samples are blocked together, the biggest sample in the block
is found, and the 10-bit wide "sliding window" is adjusted to fit that
sample then applied to all of the samples in the block. The block of samples
is then transmitted, along with the position of the sliding window.)
The net result is that high-level sounds lose resolution due to having one
or more of their significant bits truncated.

When you made the low-bit versions for the CD, did you simply truncate the
bits or did you also add the correct amount of dither?

--
Don Hills      (donhills at ibmdotnet)     Wellington, New Zealand

>who's to say the book in itself is corect? otherwise why would people
>bother with 96khz or hdcd and all that? 
>
>kent

Good point...!!!   Kent........I belive my ear more than the theory.
I Hate argue with them.  They belive theory more than ear.

Chung

In article <367f4153.21340362@news2.cyberec.com>,
Chung <kclee@hk.gin.net> wrote:
>>who's to say the book in itself is corect? otherwise why would people
>>bother with 96khz or hdcd and all that? 
>
>Good point...!!!   Kent........I belive my ear more than the theory.
>I Hate argue with them.  They belive theory more than ear.

Unfortunately, Both Mr. Chung and Lent are NOT arguing against theory,
they are both arguing against simple fact. It is a FACT that ALL audio CD
playback inherently incorporates error detection and correction,
multi-layer very sophisticated error detection and correction at that. Mr.
Chung especially has chosen to ignore this fact and instead make up
nonsense about the mechanics of CD playback.

Whether anyone likes or dislikes a particular CD player is another issue
altogether and what Mr. Chung and Kent like is not arguable.

But when Mr. Chung declares that audio CD playback has no error
correction, he is simply wrong.


-- 
|            Dick Pierce            |
|   Professional Audio Development  |
|   1-781/826-4953  Voice and FAX   |
|       DPierce@world.std.com       |

Chung heeft geschreven in bericht <367f4153.21340362@news2.cyberec.com>...
>>who's to say the book in itself is corect? otherwise why would people
>>bother with 96khz or hdcd and all that?
>>
>>kent

>Good point...!!!   Kent........I belive my ear more than the theory.
>I Hate argue with them.  They belive theory more than ear.


Then do Arny's bittest. It does not say much about bandwidth (hey Arny, make
a Bandwidth test as well ;-) but it does say much about the necessity for
more than 16 bits.

You can make such a CD (using software like Cool Edit) yourself. It's only
then that you can start to "believe" your ears (after you've experienced
that they are pretty easy to fool).

If I have the time (next year ;-) I will make a CD of my own (according to
Arny's suggestion) but will add different Bandwidth's as well (starting from
say 12kHz upto 20kHz). Would be a nice Christmas present for High Endies
;-))

Andr� Huisman
New Line licht & geluid
newline@usa.net
http://www.xs4all.nl/~newline/
--- pardon my French, I'm Dutch ---

Arny Kr�ger <arnyk@flash.net> wrote in article 
> 
> It's worse than that! All good CD players sound the same!
>
> 
> So why need expensive CD player is an even better question!


Arny, are you joking ?
 
Lee HC

Andr� Huisman wrote in message <75o437$sci$5@news2.xs4all.nl>...
>Chung heeft geschreven in bericht <367f4153.21340362@news2.cyberec.com>...
>>>who's to say the book in itself is corect? otherwise why would people
>>>bother with 96khz or hdcd and all that?
>>>
>>>kent
>
>>Good point...!!!   Kent........I belive my ear more than the theory.
>>I Hate argue with them.  They belive theory more than ear.
>
>
>Then do Arny's bittest. It does not say much about bandwidth (hey Arny, make
>a Bandwidth test as well ;-) but it does say much about the necessity for
>more than 16 bits.

Actually, doing some tests of sharp cutoffs below 20 kHz has some romance to
it.

In my foggy thinking, I've always thought that doing this sort of thing would
only make sense if the system bandpass were > than 22 or 24 kHz, and I was
just biding my time until 24/96 stuff gets more generally available. FWIW, I'm
told that after the new year, 24/96 stuff will be a lot more readily availble.
I've been testing a 24/96 DAC (seems to be very fine) and a card with 24/96
digital I/O over the past month.

However, doing some CD's with the bandpass knocked down in steps of 1 kHz
would have some romance. If I get some time over the holidays...

>You can make such a CD (using software like Cool Edit) yourself. It's only
>then that you can start to "believe" your ears (after you've experienced
>that they are pretty easy to fool).

Exactly. Just DAE a track off a CD that seems to have lots of nice high
frequency program material, and fire up Cool's FFT-based filter. BTW, this is
one amazing little feature of CoolEdit - if you type in the right numbers, you
get (by analog standards) incredible slopes and incredibly smooth bandpass.
The FFT fiilter seems to work on magnitude and leave phase alone. If you have
CEPro, they add "scientific" filters where you can define phase and amplitude
separately and arbitrarily.

Got any suggestions for program material you think would be good for this?


>If I have the time (next year ;-) I will make a CD of my own (according to
>Arny's suggestion) but will add different Bandwidth's as well (starting from
>say 12kHz upto 20kHz). Would be a nice Christmas present for High Endies
>;-))


I may get there first! ;-)

Bob Velkov wrote in message ...
>"Graham Gibson" <GibsonG@logica.com> writes:
>
>> It is possible for a CDR to have lower jitter (on the
>> disc) than the CD it was recorded from due to the
>> pre-defined "timing tracks" that exist on CDRs.
>>
>> High levels of jitter give the CD player servos a
>> hard time, which may result in audio degradation
>> via the power supply, depending on the player.
>>
>> In *theory*, a CDR can sound better than the
>> original, but whether it does *in practice* is a
>> much more contentious issue. :-)
>
>Totally agree with this!
>


Actually, I've experienced this many times. The trick is to have a
problematical CD player and a really fine CDROM for copying. Making a copy
under these conditions has produced many copies that play on the problematical
player just fine, while the originals will skip or simply not play.

Andr? Huisman <newline@usa.net> wrote in article
<75o437$sci$5@news2.xs4all.nl>...
> 
> Then do Arny's bittest. It does not say much about bandwidth (hey Arny,
make
> a Bandwidth test as well ;-) but it does say much about the necessity for
> more than 16 bits.
> 
> You can make such a CD (using software like Cool Edit) yourself. It's
only
> then that you can start to "believe" your ears (after you've experienced
> that they are pretty easy to fool).
> 
> If I have the time (next year ;-) I will make a CD of my own (according
to
> Arny's suggestion) but will add different Bandwidth's as well (starting
from
> say 12kHz upto 20kHz). Would be a nice Christmas present for High Endies
> ;-))


I understand that better technology (specification) of digital recording
provide a better media for storage of recording of musical performance.

However, the most important elements contributing to a good CD record are :
1. The standard of the performance.
2. The skill of transformation the performance into "electrical" signal.
i.e. choice of recording site, choice of microphone, placement of
microphone, balance of different pick-up.....
3. Then, the storage media. At present, IMO, LP is still better than
digital (even 24/96 DAD) media.

A state-of-the-art recording media, like 24/192, of rubbish performance &
poorly placed microphones, & unbalanced sound e.g. added low & high
frequencies, with artificial ambiance..........is just a good CD record of
rubbish that will not be appreciated.


Lee HC

Lee HC wrote in message <01be2daf$fced7620$LocalHost@default>...
>
>
>Arny Kr�ger <arnyk@flash.net> wrote in article
>>
>> It's worse than that! All good CD players sound the same!
>>
>>
>> So why need expensive CD player is an even better question!
>
>
>Arny, are you joking ?
>


Not at all. There is no technical reason related to audible sound that
justifies expensive CD players. This has been pretty well laid out in the
public eye ever since publication of: "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Ian
G. Masters and D. L. Clark,   Stereo Review, January 1986,  pp.50-57, and
reiterated by
"6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?", Ken C. Pohlmann,  Stereo
Review, December 1988,
pp.76-84.