Audio CD-R's versus regular CD-R's?


Hello,

I have a computer cd burner which I use for copying music from friends' "store-bought" cd's. I am wondering if the "audio" cd-r's are really better designed for recording music and have better sound quality than the standard cd-r's, or is this just marketing? The music or audio cd-r's are more expensive so if there is not a difference between these and the standard ones, I'd rather save the money and get the standard ones. Does anybody detect a difference? Also, what brands are recommended to buy?
hamiltonmktg2d2c
Buy your music; stealing is stealing. How will your favorite artists make a living if no one is willing to pay for their work? "It's an industry problem, let them deal with it"? "the musicians make enough touring to support themselves"? Not when the concert halls are half full thanks to the recession we're in (we're in denial). Until "the music industry" comes up with an equitable solution then you ought to support the people that make music with your hard-earned greenbacks. The traditional way, buy the music. I make compilation CD's of my own all the time (casual listening in the car etc), the difference is I paid for the music in the first place. If we are all here for the love of the music, then you really ought to reconsider how you support the folks that make the music. Megabuck rigs with no new software? No thanks.

To answer your question, the manufacturer of the blanks doesn't seem to make much difference, but like Craig pointed out, burn the music you own at 1x speed.
bravo jeff, anyone that wants a cheap disc,be it vinyl or cd can find it(used)on ebay for pennies on the dollar...search long enough and the deal of the century will come up, with the proper revenue paid to the artist.

garfish is right, a music cd-r is incripted, a revenue paid to the record industry is the blame for the higher price.

imho, my dell burning a disc at quasi speed won't come near the quality of my 1:1 phillips 950 audio burner
Jeff, I take offence - I burn tons of CD's - mainly 50's & 60's Jazz, and Blues artists, who unfortunately have been on the wrong side of the grass for years - still the record companys expect us to pay a premium, obscenely high price for $ 0.15 worth of shiny plastic. Where are the royalties going anyway? Who stealing from whom? Heck, how many times is the general public expected to re-purchase their collections with the latest 20 bit, 24 bit, super remastered & expanded versions, whatever, of their favorite recordings. Have you counted the number of new, supposedly superior versions of Miles Davis' 'Birth of the Cool', there has been in the last few years. I purchased the entire David Bowie back catalogue that was remastered (by Rhino, I think) a couple of years ago, now they've just re-released his entire old catalogue again. Big 5 marketing gone amuk.
Anyways, I enjoy, and value your input - keep up the good work Jeff.
Get the standard ones - there's no general difference save for the royalty charge and use-prevention code to go with it. Consumer-market standalone audio CD-R burners/players don't permit the use of such computer disks because they look for the proper code before recognizing the disk, but the pro-market audio machines and of course PC-burners ignore the code, and so should you.

BTW, Dogeatpuppy, how do you figure that purchasing used records or CD's gives royalty payments to artists? Sure, they might have gotten a payment from whoever bought the disk new, but that's the same as the case where Hamiltonmktg borrows the 'store-bought' disk from his friend and copies it.
Dbamac,

"Wrong side of the grass"? I love it! Reminds me of when I worked on a golf course in my college days..we had to lay a bunch of sod and I worked alongside a guy who mumbled "green side up, green side up" all day.

Of course you're right in pointing out that once the artist is dead they really don't need much money. In general any royalty payments go to the estate (family), and maybe those monthly checks make a huge difference in their lives? That's not that important to me but thought I'd mention it all the same.

In any event there is a perception that the music companies use their marketing muscle to reap obscene profits, and to some extent that's true. On the other hand they also use some of their profit to take risks and invest in new bands. Like many businesses the overwhelming majority of new acts are a commercial failure, but fortunately for us many are artistic successes. As much as I love Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin I do crave new music and by buying CD's I help fund the launch of new bands. I could list dozens of new bands that have come on the scene in the last ten years, many on indy labels, so not everything that gets pressed is a "formula band". Steal the music and the funds will dry up and we'll be left listening to "Dark Side of the Moon" over and over and over again (many feel there are worse things to do but we'll leave that for another thread).