JP,

> Sonys sounding "dark" ect. <

Nonsense. Trust your gut on this one. Bits is bits. What matters is that the CD playback sounds like the original source. And you don't need two identical players to compare CD brands. Just alternate between the Wave file source and the CD playback. If it's the same, then it's the same!

--Ethan

A few years a go I did a little test for my own peace of mind. I digitally transferred a song from a commercial CD into my SADiE workstation. Then burning at 1x on a plextor 820 (scsi), I burned a TDK, Sony, Verbatim, Taiyo Uden, Mitsui, Memorex, Maxell and a Best Buy generic.

Running out the spdif of a Marantz CD player into an Apogee 8000 for D/A, and running the SADiE out to the Apogee to compare the before and after. There were definitely sonic differences from disc to disc.

It’s not hard to believe that different die configurations would give different results. A few years back Stephen St. Croix wrote in Mix magazine about how bad he thought the TDK sounded. But ultimately let YOUR ears be the judge….

Originally posted by Doug Milton:

Running out the spdif of a Marantz CD player into an Apogee 8000 for D/A, and running the SADiE out to the Apogee to compare the before and after. There were definitely sonic differences from disc to disc.

I can't imagine this is anything but pit jitter. Play 'em through a jitter-immune DAC and I bet the differences go away. This is actually a good reason to have a crappy DAC around, IMO.

I think it's all about finding the brand that works best with your burner- Plextor/Taiyo Yuden seems to be a pretty standard combo. A colleague has a Sony drive, and he reports the least problems with Verbatim blanks.

i dont know abot the sound difference between different brands of cd-rs.
but what i do know is that there is a differnce between the sound of a "real cd" (pressed cd) then a cd-r
i have masters (mastered stuff) that i have done on cd-r before they were sent to the pressing plant (for the making of a glass master and duplicated) the cds that were pressed later had a difference in there sound.
the cd sounded better to me (smooth highs and more rounded-like it wass compressed a bit) it happind to me sevral times also my friends also told me they did an a/b test and that what happend

What a bunch of hooie. A storage method doesn't dictate what the sound will be, rather the way it was converted and put there.

A glass master-pressed disc will sound better. There is no wobble causing errors from being burned at high speeds.

There are sonic differences in CDR's. The burner used with different CDR's and the player with different CDR's. It has to do with error correction, not with the actual bit stream. Burners are usually calibrated to work with a dye type. A good pressed CD has better pit definition and hense less error correction. To think that the medium does not play a roll is wrong.

Well the differences might be subtle, but if there are some who have tested and heard differences, I would opt to believe that.

Apparntly there have been articals in mix and others about the sonic differences between the different brands. All I am after is the best possible reccomended CD for a master.
I've ordered some HHBs to check out and well try to test them aginst the "Best Buy" Sony.

JPH,

> if there are some who have tested and heard differences, I would opt to believe that. <

There are some who will say there's a difference in an A/A test, where nothing has changed.

Human hearing is fleeting, and the only way to know for sure if something changes is with a double blind test. There's a reason that such tests are used by scientists when they need to separate fact from fiction. Anything less is just guessing. Or wishful thinking.

--Ethan

There are differences in media. What I look for and we have tested all the different CD's for is blur rate or the amount of errors that are on the CD. And we have found that with our CD burners the Taiyo Y. give us less errors. You can see it on the read out. So I know its legit.
This doesn't mean that it sounds better. But it does mean it's more accurate.

As for sound, when I've noticed a difference it was because of jitter not the media itself.

Well after getting the HHBs in here and testing to the best of my ability, I can't hear any difference. I'm inclined to believe that there are most likely lower error rates on some CDs but not any sonic coloration.

Last time I hit the local chain computer store for some CDR's I was hit with the decision to buy CDR's that were labeled "music" and CDR's that were labeled "data", etc. Is this just a marketing ploy for the masses? I thought a blank CDR was just like the next blank, and that bits are bits are bits are bits. Is there a significant difference between these designations? Seems to me a blank CDR is/should be a clean slate to put whatever bits you need/want to on it.

The CDRs labelled "music" were originally designed for use in various consumer stand-alone recorders such as the Philips 765 and others, circa 1998-99.

The chemical dye formulations are identical to those used in the "data" discs, and there should be no difference in sound quality.

However, the "music" discs have part of their TOC header pre-written, so that they can be identified by the recording software in the consumer decks.

The "data" discs, without this pre-written code, are not recognized by the consumer machines, and cannot be used for recording in them.

The "music" discs tend to be quite a bit more expensive than the data discs. Part of the extra cost is a royalty payment to the big-five record labels, to offset losses caused by home-copying of major-label material.

In conclusion, the "music" discs offer no advantage unless you are using a consumer machine such as a Philips or Marantz, etc. for mixdown. Computer-based burners can use the "data" discs, as can professional stand-alone decks such as the Masterlink and others.

hope this helps,

JPH,

> after getting the HHBs in here and testing to the best of my ability, I can't hear any difference. <

Which was my original point. :)

> there are most likely lower error rates on some CDs but not any sonic coloration. <

Right, and this is because of all the built-in error correction and redundancy. For every 16 bits of audio data there are 14 more bits just hanging around waiting to be used if needed. Data CDs use 16 redundant bits for each 16 data bits. But this does not mean that audio errors can be corrected only partially! In all but the most severe cases the data can be restored fully.

--Ethan

Sorry, guys... Ethan's right. Assuming all the discs contain the same data, and the bits going to the D/A are the same, (and arrive at the same time) then there will be no sonic difference (other than possible wishful thinking). The points regarding discs not being read properly are also good points, but that seems like a rare instance - they tend to either play or not play.

I suppose if I spent extra on higher cost cdrs, I'd want them to sound better, but wishing doesn't make it so...

I disagree.

Some blank CD's are not as "balanced" as others and at the RPM's they must turn, some of this imbalance causes the error correction circuitry, to work harder, and this causes audible artifacts.

When you are looking at the signal path from the reader to the error corection, more error corection, more anomilies. It may be good enough for accounting but when the engineers here tell you they hear a difference, perhaps they have the experience to know what they are talking about.

Studies in using devices such as the CD stop light also have passed the double blind testing or ABX testing with a 90% or greater reaction.

It is not about the data on the CD, it is about how the platform can read the data and transpose all of it from error correction, kick, azimuth and laser output to the D/A converter for processing.

Some CD's are out of balance and vibrate on the spindle. The error correction circuitry is doing big duty just to make these read at all.

great, next we'll be playing the "which hard drive sounds better" game. :p

:p:

But when burning a CD for archiving purposes, you'd want as accurate a copy as possible, down to the last byte. Granted, error-correction and jitter are practically nonexistant when properly ripped in a controlled environment as opposed to being jostled around in a car stereo, but meh.

I'd burn all the stuff I want archived as .wavs on a data CD, in any case. Why be shackled to 16-bit/44.1kHz?

303, We happen to CARE about sonics on this site. Anything to advance the recording arts are the goals.

Since this is a mastering forum, to get your product the best it can be for mastering and the best it can be after mastering is something that this forum strives to teach. Otherwise, the folks here will get no real world benefit if they did not care to go the extra miles it takes to extract even slightly better results.

Why be average when their are whole different levels of quality that can be taught and exercised?

My above mentions the medium which you record on to send your mix off for best possable mastering. Any weaknesses in the chain will add up and show themselves in the final product.

oh i do care about audio quality, i'm just saying that the media brand won't make the difference. if you want pro quality, use a pro writer! if you dont have one, rent one. if you're worried too much about cdr media types, use an adat! they're fairly standard. :)

Now wait a minute, as there is a huge difference in CDRs and now hard drives, there is also a major difference in ADAT tapes!!!
hahaha
Well, the only difference in ADAT tapes is the ERROR RATE, the chances of a spooling problem and the life expectancy. One would assume that the error rate would be the only factor that would effect a recording, at least in a short-term audible way. THE SAME CAN BE SAID ABOUT CDRs.
Assuming 100% readability, it will all sound the same. Now, I would agree that cheaper CDs, tapes, or hard drives would have a higher error rate, but I would doubt if you could actually hear the difference.

hey, which CDR brands have you guys been using with G4 quicksilver burners?

I have been using Sony, Plasmon, Dr. Hawk, TDK, Maxwell. Seems Sony and Plasmon provided better results. Maybe I´m just crazy.

lol

quick test, type out a quick story in word, save it to 2 different types of CDR.

Now open it and read it off the CDR. Does the story have a better ending on the expensive CDR's.
I know the stories i save on TDK's have a much darker feel.

well then.

Kudos to you for missing the entire point. =P

Hey this is fun.....

I find with my fairly high quality Sony burner, if I use the 'Best' Matsui blanks, I get a better print than on the Maxell or 'other' bulk type of disk...This seems to allow for a better sounding copy that travels well...ie it plays in crappy players everywhere...The explanation I've gotten for this from my mastering house has been about the dye...I know that bits are bits are bits, and theres errors and jitter to be considered in all this but it seems that you would want the best copy you could get each time you run a few off for the band or whoever...I'm not talking production printing here, just singles for reference and archiving, and the better built disks seem to work so much better for this though sonically the first play or so shows no diffrence in tone or content...just my stoopid .02

Just my .02:

Davedog, you have hit on something that I have posted before but may bear repeating.

I have done some research & found that certain disc dye-types match up to the specific "burn temperatures" of lasers in different brands of burners better than others. My Sony CDW-900-E's do not like blue dye CD-rs. They do not like bright gold dye CD-rs. They do like green (old) or light gold CD-rs. That is the kind that gives the most error free burns.

With other types of dye, the laser can burn tiny pin holes in the dye layer that will turn up as digital errors in a plants QC proceedures. They may not be audible, but you can bet that more error correction is required to get them to play. They will also be bounced for E-32 errors before being replicated.

Perhaps they can also be responsible for the small but audible differences we are talking about.

Each burner has a laser temp. that matches best with a specific dye type. Maybe those "sound" best because they are the most error free.

I said earlier: "Assuming all the discs contain the same data, and the bits going to the D/A are the same, (and arrive at the same time) then there will be no sonic difference (other than possible wishful thinking)."

Prolab responded: "Some blank CD's are not as "balanced" as others and at the RPM's they must turn, some of this imbalance causes the error correction circuitry, to work harder, and this causes audible artifacts. ...when the engineers here tell you they hear a difference, perhaps they have the experience to know what they are talking about."

One if the conditions in my original statement, if A AND B, then C, is the data arriving at the D/A had to be the same. Depending on the music, if you shut the player off during one disc, the silence might sound better than the presumably identical material reaching your ears from another ;-)

Also, you may choose to believe what you are told because you think the source is infallible, but as far as I can tell, all sources but the Bible are originated by humans and are therefore subject to human fallacy. Good day.

Although my comment about the story was a joke it did have a point.

A word file is converted to a load of 0 and 1's and saved to cd. and you wouldn't expect any of the letters to be different when you read the story of different CD's.

Its the same with audio. If alot of the 0 or 1's were incorrect as with the story it would end up with the odd random letter incorrect. This dosn't happen, even when you save a read a document thousands of times.

This may be possible with the millions of zero's and one's in an ausio file but this would result in some random degredation of the audio which may be audible ( I doubt it) but even if it is it would be random degredation not a specific color.

Like some people here have said it is worthwhile find CD's that give the most reliable copy's but lets not start imagining things.

And just because someones and engnieer it dosn't mean that they have super hearing powers. No human can make a definate objective test of one recording against another and be sure that that a subtle difference exists with proper double blind testing.

Its not *THAT*, exactly. I mean, its base common sense that digital remains digital without the degradation of "quality" when you make an exact replica retaining all the one's and zero's.

The main point of discussion here isn't that the data itself magically corrupts on different brand CD-Rs, but more of the ease of that data being read by various players. Some CD-Rs have dyes which don't pit very deep, and this can cause problems with sensitive players. Other CD-Rs may be printed slightly off-center, causing jitter and some bits to be misread by the laser. Keep in mind that many audio systems do not read as well as even a regular PC CD-ROM drive, and an audio format CD has a continuous bit stream whereas a data CD has quite a lot of redundant (and thus error-recoverable) information.

Like to add that I haven't heard anything like certain CD-Rs sounding "darker", of course.

The point about the "story" was clear from the start. As a "data" cd begins to suffer degradation in reading of the bits, it will remain "perfect" by error correction up to a point. Past that point, it suddenly becomes unreadable and you get a file read error. That's why you don't see the random character - either it all gets through the OS, or it shuts the whole thing down.

Audio cds are much the same but differ in that there is a region where they don't correct out "perfectly" but instead of a read error, some guessing (interpolation) as to what the missing samples would be is employed. If enough samples are missing, though, it just mutes the audio. It's in that narrow band where interpolation kicks in that any sonic degradation would occur. I don't think it happens very often with any cdrs unless they are scratched up, then all bets are off.

How about a cd player with a light indicating when a sample had to be interpolated?

I think that would be an interesting but possibly scarey thing based on the scratched up condition of some masters I get sent in to me. The error correction systems clearly work overtime on many of these discs just to play them. The light might be on all the time.

People, even engineers & producers, have little regard for the work that a cd player has to go through to get the music to us.

In general, people should take better care of their cd-r masters.

Originally posted by RidgeCrest:
How about a cd player with a light indicating when a sample had to be interpolated?

Great idea. I'd support development of such a product, even if it may never see mass-market.

I DO know some CD-ripping programs like EAC (the best, the finest, in my opinion) will re-read erroneous areas over and over again to get the correct data, and can be set to tell the user if all else fails.

Edit: typo

the first time i bought an external tascam burner i was puzzeled why my masters weren't as hot as store bought. i thought is was because i was using a different cd type than the pros. this lead me on to the discovery of what mastering was in general.

along the way though, i talked the ear of of a cd guy at hhb plant. his response to "are there better cd's than others" was. yes, there are cd's that recieve and keep your information better than others. but you won't get more volume or different tone from one vs the other.

he described the different layers of a cd, the material that the laser burns it's info to, and in a nutshell said that you can have a 50 cent cd sound a good as 4 dollar cd if all the info makes it there.and makes it back o.k.

but the 4 dollar cd will last 10 years longer and will have less errors over time. as a general rule don't burn important masters onto blue coloured cd's what so ever.the suggestions from him were blue-cheapest, worst quality, gold,silver best.

look for alloys that don't degrade quickly and you will be alright. the blue cd's don't have an alloy, it gets burned to some kind of dye, nota layer of metal, so they won't last as long.

this may coincide with peoples jitter concept because a disk with a layer of metal instead of dye would probably spin truer and keeps it's form longer.

chris perra

Very specific this, of interest to Masterlink Fans- I sent a CDA Redbook from a Masterlink to a plant recently. It was a 79 minute album, using a Verbatim CDR. Rejected, lots of trouble reading and errors in the R-W subcodes. I spoke with the engineer who was glass mastering. He likes TDK particularly. I got some 80min TDK and reburned from the original disc image. Full speed read with no errors in the subcodes.
DanDan