I have found them to be equal or better most of the time. The reason being you can control the burn rate and quality of the CD, assuming you are buying good media. Your homemade copies are actually burned buy a laser moving at a much slower rate and creating the peaks and valleys and not pressed by the thousands or millions at 100x.IME.YMMV:>) |
It does seem to me to be technically plausible that many of these reports could be true (and I would certainly expect Learsfool's perceptions to be accurate), although I would expect the magnitude and character of the differences to be highly dependent on the design of the particular player that is being used (and probably also on the particular media, burner, and burn speed that are used). From this paper by Steve Nugent of Empirical Audio: 3. Jitter from the pits on a CD:And some excerpts from this thread: 07-19-11: Shadorne 07-20-11: KirkusBest regards, -- Al |
So if I have a CD, rip it to my computer and then make a CDR, then the CDR sounds better than the original CD. Does that mean if I then take the CDR, rip it to the computer and then make another CDR, does the 2nd generation CDR sound even better than the first generation CDR? All I know is that everything matters, anything is possible and we don't fully understand audio reproduction (at least at relativistic speeds and temperatures). |
10-24-11: StanwalHi Stan, No, it never folded. Some years back it changed its name to "Sound & Vision Magazine," reflecting increased focus on home theatre, video, etc. And many years back it absorbed the subscription bases, and perhaps some of the assets, of "High Fidelity" and "Audio" magazines, when they ceased publication. Best regards, -- Al |
10-24-11: PhaelonHi Tom, I have no directly relevant experience, but from a technical standpoint I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be the case. You may also want to give the much less expensive Taiyo Yuden CD-R's a try, specifically the ones indicated as being "for professional use." They offer a 100 year data guarantee, and in my experience (in non-audio applications) with both their DVD-R's and CD-R's, and according to many other reported experiences, things like failed burns, incompatibilities with burners and players, etc., virtually never occur. Taiyo Yuden is now part of JVC, and their media are often listed as "JVC/Taiyo Yuden." Also, fwiw, my practice has been to burn at one-half of the speed rating of the media. Best regards, -- Al |
Harley is correct on this point. Onhwy61, you have stumbled upon an interesting curiosity; "So if I have a CD, rip it to my computer and then make a CDR, then the CDR sounds better than the original CD. Does that mean if I then take the CDR, rip it to the computer and then make another CDR, does the 2nd generation CDR sound even better than the first generation CDR?" The answer, again, is yes, however the second (i.e. first copy CDR) must be treated with pollish. In fact, there will be an easily audible difference between a pollished and unpollished disk which has been used for the source for the CDR. An untreated CDR being copied had no net gain sonically. Pollishing the CDR before copying was necessary to improve the sound yet again. So, there are two clearly defined improvements possible over manufactured Redbook discs - Pollish the Redbook disc and copy it to CDR. Then pollish the CDR and copy it again. Pollish the final (3rd) disc and it will sound radically differently than the original Redbook disc. An audiophile friend and I stumbled upon this discovery when we were testing the efficacy of CDR sound vs. manufactured Redbook discs. Both the pollishing and creating of a CDR benefited the sound. Do I follow all these steps myself? No; however, I do pollish all my Redbook discs. Al, no, the results are independent of the player used. I have had similar results with many different players/DACs. The only logical explanation for this is the influence of the pollish and copying of the Redbook disc upon the error correction systems of the player. I share this as a point of information from my experiences and I am not interested in arguing over these observations. |
MAM-A regular data cd-rs are also very high quality and can be recommended for long life. The gold archival quality would be audiophile overkill though. If audiophile overkill works for you in general, then get the gold archival MAM-A. I have generic cheapies that I have left in my truck for over 9 years in Arizona (temperatures often over 100 degrees) as an experiment. They still play just fine. To me the key is to store them in the dark. Opaque cardboard or plastic boxes you can buy at Bags Unlimited will do the trick. leaving them out where they are exposed to even indoor ambient light will destroy them fairly quickly. |
Better means deeper, more clearly defined soundstage, it means cleaner/more distinct overall presentation - more easily heard stereo separation but more solid L/C/R across the soundstage - with greater refinement of top frequencies clear down to the bass. It means improved macrodynamics such that it seems someone turned up the level when it has not been touched. These are the results in every instance. It also gives the sense that you are hearing into the piece more and increases the corporeality of the artist(s). If you are not seeking those qualities, then you would likely not see it as better; then don't treat your discs and don't make CDR's of them to play in place of Redbook discs. |
Well, it's not as risky as what Antoine Montant was up to. It's also not as time consuming as what one has to do to play vinyl. As when transferring the discs to my NAS, I did a few at a time, perhaps six or so. Then it was not nearly the overwhelming chore it appeared when looking at the entire collection. Now I don't even play a disc until it's been treated; why suffer the lesser sound quality when an improvement exists at so minimal cost/effort? |
