I use Nero and "Copy entire disc" to duplicate an audio CD, and I sense a slight difference between the original and the new CD's quality (I use the same drive for source and destination). Am I imagining or is there supposed to be a difference? Does the burn speed, the burning method, or the program used to burn matter, or is there not supposed to be a difference? I would like recommendations if there's a way to improve the quality.

Sincerely,

Oded.

I think you are just imagining things.. There should be no differance.

Just "sensing" differences is not enough here at Hydrogenaudio ... you will need to provide hard evidence that there is a difference that can be repeatedly spotted. For these kind of tasks, the scientifically accepted ABX blind testing process has been developed (search the forums for info on that topic).

To cut this short, Nero uses buffered burst mode during audio extraction which entirely relies on the reader's internal error correction. This can be sufficient, but might as well be flawed ... probable faulty rips will most likely show glitches, pops, distortion (on heavily flawed discs) or just samples that are different from the original.

If you would use a DAE "specialist" like Exact Audio Copy (EAC) or Plextools (if a Plextor drive is available), you could benefit from some kind of more thorough software error checking, reporting and correction (visit the EAC website for EAC download) ...

As a third option, you probably use media of low quality or false writing speeds that could result in copies that sound diferent ... my rather personal recommendation is to use media produced by the japanese company Taiyo Yuden, often sold under the brand of TDK, Fuji, Maxell, Plextor ... if you search the web, you will find many places where media quality is discussed ... e.g. here.

The burning program itself (assuming that your CDRW device is well implemented) should make no difference to the quality (although I prefer to use EAC's burning interface for several non-quality-related reasons)

Conclusion

If you extract and burn the right way, there should be absolutely no differences at all ... in fact, it is possible to produce copies with even less errors than the source CD ... I am disregarding Jitter on the burned CD because from my knowledge, a well-burned CD's jitter values are well within the specs and should cause absolutely no problems on a properly-designed read device.

And still, JeanLuc, modern-day drives and reasonable-condition CDs will produce perfect-sounding and bit-matching copies even using burst-mode extraction and high speed burning on less-than-perfect media*.

I use Taiyo Yuden and EAC for the Warm Fuzzy Feeling (and because I have been burning CDs since 1998, I am too familiar with the frustration of a flawed copy --which were very common in the old days--) but I do know that it is probably overkill for most of my CDs (I keep my CDs in perfect condition, with not even a single fingerprint on them and I rip and burn on my trust-worthy, C2-friendly LiteOn, which has yet to let me down).

*OT: I think this is the worst case of hyphenated terms in a single paragraph in the history of HA

Not completely true ...

Imagine that there are many pristine (no scratches, no fingerprints) discs with mastering errors that will cause trouble without seeing any hint for defects ... you cannot state anything about the data integrity by looking at the disc (assuming your statement about reasonable-condition CD's refers to the disc's optical impression).

I agree (and have been veryfying myself) that modern drives can be able to correct a lot of errors in burst mode (my LiteOn CDRW's will speeddown themselves on read errors without application interference - but sometimes fail to produce accurate results as well)

As for less-than-perfect media ... E21 & E22 errors (aka C2 errors) should never happen (and el-cheapo media still shows them and thus leave less headroom for future media degradation) - if they occur, lowering the write speed (not talking about highspeed-media written @ 4x CLV - rather thinnking about some 16-20x instead of 40x) could be a good idea since you will often encounter less errors on lower write speed until you reach the "sweet spot" for burner/media combination.

C1 errors do not state a problem at all ... the specs allow a BLER of 225/second which is never reached on normal discs IMO ... but then again, the more headroom, the better ... ;-)

I would not call that a "warm fuzzy feeling" since error rates are real, thus measureable and directly correspond to media quality ...

Indeed...

But my point was that we don't have to be as anal as we were in the old days now. Remember those times when "get a Plextor" was an almost unanimous response to anyone who asked which was the way to get a perfect rip? (I don't mean this as any kind of personal reference)

There have been occassions for me on which I have had to do with burst-mode copies (like when raiding some of my friends' CD collections) and so far, on my very own experience, I have yet to hear a gitch or pop.

Sometimes, when I like one of those CDs so much that I have had to get the original for myself, I have extracted using all the right tools and compared. Other than offset differences, perfect matches.

I repeat, I am not willing to quit on secure extraction, relatively slow-burning and premium media, but I sometimes wonder if we are getting close to the point (hardware-wise) in which most of our worries will be exaggerated. And, if such time comes, will we be ready to accept it? For example, C2-usage seems to be reliable enough on some later drives to use it on EAC, but still, there are too many people who won't touch it, "just to be safe".

Yep, the PX20/32/40TSi were capable of high-speed accurate DAE at a time where other manufacturers didn't even produce DAE-capable drives at all ... *g*

Nowadays, my PX40 still rips fast, overreads I/O and defeats CDS200 copy protections with reliable interpolation in EAC secure mode ... so I will not give up using it although I could use that extra PCI slot for another IDE/SATA controller when abandoning SCSI

As for C2 (better: CU) usage within EAC ... I have carried out so many tests with different extractions on multiple drives that I thoroughly trust this feature with my different drives ...

Still OT,
Too bad you missed the original spelling of the name JeanLuc : Jean-Luc !

I know that, too ... I've been learning french for quite some time ... *g*

the answer is maybe. though most modern burners and good quality media shouldn't do problems, sometimes it is possible to end up with a lot of errors on the burned copy that can affect sound quality. this issue is pretty much an open debate.

from numerous tests that were put together by magazines and labs, you will end up with more errors if you burn at higher speeds (but this usually has to be as high as 24x to cause serious problems. the difference between 2x and 8x will obviously be less noticeable, but there are those who claim they can hear distinct differences between 2x and 8x, and there are even those who claim to hear big difference between 1x and 2x). you will also end up with more errors if you use crappy media. moreover, it is a fact that most mastering gurus burn masters at 1x and also instruct the cd pressing facility to cut the glass master at 1x. hmmm... maybe 1x is an overkill for most home users, but i still stick to 2x for perfect copies.

so, the simple answer to your question is: yes, it could happen, but as long as you use a good quality drive and good media there shouldn't be any difference (perhaps any noticeable difference) in sound quality.

You can hear an example here : http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=17117&
...and decide by yourself if this is similar to your problem.



An audiophile shop in my town agreed to setup a blind listening test between digital devices (original CD vs Copy, for example), by the end of this month. They have high end gear, and the guy says he's certain to recognize immediately the difference. I'll post the results of the test here if I can have him perform 8 sessions in double blind.



These tests have maybe been carried out with old burners (like 4x burners). Tests published on the web with various burners (from 12x to 52x) don't show any consistent behaviour, check the FAQ.



That's what they claim, but as long as they don't listen double blinded and get a statistically significant result, it doesn't mean anything.



True, but they rather use audio burners than computer burners. Also, the remark about double blind tests is valid for them too. They can do this simply because "it is said" to work better.

Here's a good summary of the matter : http://forum.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83393
An interesting quote from Minix :

oh dear... no it's not that severe. i'm talking about tonal discrepancies.


that will be great if you can post the results. i wish i could perform some of these tests myself on audiophile quality equipment. my stereo speakers are good but it would be nice to do a blind test on high quality gear. still, when i play older 4x copies, there is a slight difference between the original and copy. it sounds as though the attacks are not as sharp as the original, lows are a bit muddy, highs lack certain "definition". hard to explain really but noticeable nonetheless. i'm trying to see if i can abx copies that i made recently at 2x. the older discs are sony taiyo yuden and some maxwells. the newer ones i'm experimenting with now are fujifilm taiyo yuden.


dunno really. i don't have a 52x burner. and even if i would i wouldn't burn at the maximum speed. i'm surprised to hear that, actually. with many media manufacturers that used to be high quality but are now lower quality to keep costs low i always thought this problem would get worst as more low quality media and high speed burners are put out there.


true, but how to explain a lot of mastering engineers saying they can hear distinct differences between 1x and 2x, 4x, etc.? surely many of them realize how the final product is supposed to sound like and they monitor their work on audiophile equipment. example.


i know that it's better to burn at high speeds when using phthalocyanine-based discs (lower speeds can actually make matters worst), but cyanine and metal azo media should provide stable performance at both high and low speeds.

[quote=outscape,Jan 9 2004, 10:18 PM]i know that it's better to burn at high speeds when using phthalocyanine-based discs [/quote]

Can you provide error scans ?

[quote=outscape,Jan 9 2004, 10:18 PM](lower speeds can actually make matters worst), but cyanine and metal azo media should provide stable performance at both high and low speeds.[/quote]

How do you explain that Alexnoe's Azo CDRs are Ok at 52x, and crappy at 4x ? And that his Cyanine ones are best at 4x, good at 52x and worst at 20x ? ( http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=69698 )
You can't rely on any rule...

In the page that you links, there is much talk about the sound of digital, but there is not a single blind test mentionned.
Here are some comments :

[quote]If the original clock sampled IN evenly |--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--| but the playback OUT was uneven (jittery) |---|-|--|-|--|---|-|--| the playback could sound more brittle, less wide and smooth, more dry and grainy.[/quote]

There has never been any double blind test showing this to my knowledge, the tricky part being being able to measure the jitter of the source. So this is still speculation.

[quote]Most computer-based digital audio cards have quite high jitter due to ground and power contamination and the proximity of other clocks on the computer's motherboard[/quote]
The problem of power contamination and proximity of other clocks was a reality in the SB16 days, now, the signal to noise ratio of soundcards being as good as, or sometimes superior to the one of standalone CD Players shows that this issue is solved. For jitter, I don't know.

[quote]Errors - CD plants (should) always do BLER (Block Error) scans to make sure that uncorrectible errors don't cause your CDR master to be rejected[/quote]
Yes, so errors are not an issue, since it is ensured that there are none.

[quote]Recalculations occur when you are processing sound in any digital processor, like Pro Tools, Nuendo, a Finalizer, you name it. The sonic quality of those recalculations depends on a lot of things, but lets move on...[/quote]
Off topic ! If you process the sound, you don't expect it to sound the same as the original to begin with.

[quote]DAT machines mistrackkkkk[/quote]
Must be rejected as defective (unfortunately not always done), there are error counters on professional DAT decks.

[quote]files get fragmented (mostly slows access, may cause crashes)... [/quote]
Off topic. A coaster can't be read anyway.

[quote]files become corrupted (software can be largely to blame), [/quote]
Wrong, only hardware can "corrupt" files. If the software changes files, it is bugged. You can check by yourself that EAC, CDex, etc don't corrupt file with a file compare utility, or the DOS command line.

[quote]high-end digital gear folks say that Toslink/fiber optic cable doesn't sound as good as AES/EBU or BNC...[/quote]
...but no one cares to setup any double blind test.
[quote]... Error correction helps, but when it comes to your master, you want the ultimate... not second-best[/quote]

The only acceptable explanation (still unverified) for different sounding digital cables is jitter. Error correction has nothing to do with it. There is no error even on a cheap analog cable used instead of digital. You can also check it by yourself ( http://perso.numericable.fr/~laguill2/spdif/proof.htm )

[quote]
Different CDRs sound different
[/quote]
Proof ?

[quote]I find the 700mb sound better than 650 mb[/quote]

I've read that sound engeeners used exclusively 650 MB CDRs (at CDRlabls or CD Freaks, some years ago) because before around 1998, 700 MB CDRs were violating the orange book standard, and some old players are not compatible with them. The problem that we can see here is that the advice of professional people is no more professional than anyone else advice. They contradict each other, like audiophiles...

[quote]Software designers are sometimes required to program for efficiency instead of precision. This means in order to make a program run fast at a competitive price, they end up making it handle larger blocks of data at once, compromising the possible resolution of the sound. A small error within a block gets corrected, and thus the whole block is changed.[/quote]

There is no relation between the amount of data processed at once and the resolution of the sound, and the second sentence is illogical : if the error is corrected, the data should not be changed. If they are changed, it means that the error was not corrected.
Again, you can check by yourself. There must not be a single error between an original and a copy. Secure rippers are there to ensure this.

[quote]A great engineer, Lynn Fuston, took a top-of-the line multitrack digital studio recording and made 30, count them 30, identical (plus-or-minus a couple microscopic hairs) mixes on different DAWs. This is the Awesome DAWSUM comparison. Here's the 3D forum home and here's my sonic analysis of each system. Not for the faint at heart and the results were pretty incredible... [/quote]
I can see no solid results. The test was sighted, only the names of the DAW were masked. The author just gives his personal opinion about each recording, without any blind test showing that any difference could be actually heard.

[quote]I've experienced transferring a sound file from one hard drive to another and the sound changed[/quote]

When you say that you've got a goose in your garden, and we ask a proof, you can send us a photo of the goose in your garden. Looking at it, we'll agree that there was a goose in your garden.
But when you say that there is a unicorn in your garden, we won't believe it even if we see a photo of a horse with a horn on the forehead.
Here the author tells us that there is a unicorn in his garden, and he doesn't even provide a photo of it, that would be the results of a blind listening test in order to see if a real difference can be heard.

[quote]The reason a data CDR doesn't have errors and an audio CDR does is partly because when the data CDR encounters an error, it re-reads the section over and over until it reads the data correctly, whereas when playing an audio CDR, this doesn't happen because it cant keep stalling the audio output so it can reread the data over and over![/quote]

This has 0.00001 % to do with the fact hat there are much fewer errors on CD ROMs than on CDDAs. The 99.99999 % reason is because there are more error correction information on a CD ROM than on a CD DA, like he says just after.

[quote]One of the two other engineers who heard exactly what I heard is a 30 year+ veteran with name credits. The musician in the session who didn't hear the difference was a 19 year old guitar player involved in his first professional recording.[/quote]
This doesn't mean anything. A professional sound engeener once came in this board, claimed that MP3 sounded bad enough so that he could hear it anytime on professional equipment, because it was his job, etc... When provided with some samples, he mistook the Mp3 and the original ones. Some people always brag their diplomas, their experience, their knowledge and their golden ears, but never perform any blind listening test ! (This is not the case of the one who came here, who fairly accepted to pass the test). This behaviour alone discredits them in our eyes, because this is unscientific. It's not the job or the experience that proves what one hears, it's the results of the blind listening test.

actually, no. in this case i'm afraid i have to rely on what i read on a number of different websites (i.e. old discussions on cd-rw.org and cd freaks as well as information off kodak and mitsui's own websites, etc). the reason i can't provide c1 errors scans is because none of my drives support c1 errors detection, but one drive (apparently) supports c2 errors. i ran a couple of newer taiyo yuden fujifilm created at 2x through cdspeed and no c2 errors were reported. however, scanning a couple of old maxell media recorded at 4x showed c2 errors even though the disc itself is perfectly clean (no scratches or anything like thay). a slightly newer maxwell xl media (created approx. 2 years ago) at 2x has no c2 errors (at least as far as the drive is reporting it).