You will find others who agree that some copied CDs can sound much better than original.
I'm not dreaming - these are great CD copies
I have an out of town friend who's given me some CD-Rs that he's made by simply copying music off of red book CDs. The music quality is extremely good - better than I'm used to hearing from my red book CDs. He's not an audiophile and has no idea what format is being utilized e.g. Lossless, etc.
Question - Can you really improve the quality of music from a red book CD by simply copying to some other format? If so, I'm boxing up all 300 of my CDs and asking my friend to copy make copies for me.
Question - Can you really improve the quality of music from a red book CD by simply copying to some other format? If so, I'm boxing up all 300 of my CDs and asking my friend to copy make copies for me.
58 responses Add your response
It is my opinion the reason that "burned" CD's sound "better" is that some of the high frequencies are lost during the process, thereby removing some of the CD glare in playback on some systems which have a bright sonic characteristic. My hypothesis could be checked out if one is fortunate enough to have access to a dual sweep oscilloscope. |
When analog material is copied to tape there is a loss of high frequency material and an increase in noise floor with each subsequent generation away from the original master. Digital copying is different. It will not change the high frequency response or SN ratio. Each digital data point includes all the frequencies and you can't change the frequency response and still have the same data point. (A CDR copy will have the same file checksum as the original CD. If you don't have the same checksum, you have a corrupt copy. It is extremely unlikely that corruption would affect only high frequencies; you're far more likely to have skips, clicks and pops from corrupted data.) If a CDR does sound different, it is probably due to a difference in how a player reads a CD. Commercially pressed CDs have the lands and pits physically pressed into the surface of the CD while CDRs have a dye coating that is physically burned to create lands and pits. Generally a CDR is only about 70% as reflective as a CD and there are a number of different dye formulations that can be used. Any audible difference with a particular player is more likely tied to this issue than anything else. |
What Mlsstl said. I have noticed that some copies friends have made me sound unexpectedly good, although I don't have the origina; to compare to. I think one thing to keep in mind is that all signals are analog; digital is simply a concept to analyze analog signals that vary between 2 discreet volotages. The way I see it, ost of the signal is in these 2-voltages, but when it comes to picky audio aplications, all the other noise on the signal, variations from the 2 voltagews, timing errors, and whatever else can cause audible problems. |
I am so happy to see this discussion take place. In order to have the best quality sound that was for me pocket portable for travel I was in the habit of ripping music lossless to the Microsoft Zune application on my notebook PC to play on my 80 GB Zune player while traveling. I had burned a number of CDs from that source when I was unable to find the original Redbook CDs to play on my home audio equipment. Even today I had the experience of listening to a burned lossless copy of Shostakovich Symphony number seven and was absolutely blown away by the quality of the recording, way beyond what I had remembered. In this case the original was a Naxos CD which is, because of it's price point, I'm certain not the best pressing that one can imagine. What a very timely discussion that has now confirmed something that I had been feeling but had no way of even imagining how to explain. Thanks much to the OP. |
Can you really improve the quality of music from a red book CD by simply copying to some other format? No. Data on a red book CD is stored as a cda file. As such, copying a cda file results in the same cda file being copied elsewhere. Ripping a cd on the other hand can result in a change of format, such as wav. Once in an editable format such as wav, the file can be reworked in the digital domain and as such can be improved (subjective) relative to its parent source file. |
I thought Audioengr (Steve) had commented about this in another thread some time ago. My recollection is he said copying the CD onto a CD-R eliminated one contributor to jitter (I don't believe it eliminates jitter in any absolute sense). If I recall correctly (and that ain’t anything to bet on) there’s less (imprecision?) in how the dye-based copy is read vs how the laser beam falls on the "pits" making up the stamped CD’s information. |
There is a review (that I can't locate) that explained how a laser reads the physical pits and grooves of a CD. It's being done in an analog fashion ( a mechanical process) which then had to be processed into the digital domain. With the laser just reading a painted pit and groove, there is less chance of error. Physical pits and grooves aren't as well done as they should be when stamped. A painted one can be very precise, comparatively. All the best, Nonoise |
I’m not dreaming - these are great CD copiesI think your hear an extra something to you good or bad) that error correct gives. Original retail is always best. There’s a lot more laser error correction goes on in a burnt cd compared to a stamped retail CD see the "pits" the laser has to read. Left moulded/stamped retail CD pits Middle and right burnt CD-R pits one gold one normal silver https://www.iasa-web.org/sites/default/files/tc05-fig20.jpg Cheers George |
A lot of CD copies do sound better than the original CD. I think it has to do with error correction. Watch a CD spin in a top loader with a window. CDs are not perfectly balanced and will oscillate. I believe this can cause read errors. I think some burned CDR copies are easier to read and need less error correction. I am sure some CD players have more trouble than others. CDR blanks made in Japan are the best. Taiyo Yuden are excellent. But not all Fuji are Taiyo Yuden. Look for made in Japan on the package. I know that a number of years ago, you could pick up 50 CD spindles of made in Japan Fuji for a few bucks just about everywhere. I think they may have been closing them out. The Blanks made in China are the worst. Cheap blanks can deteriorate over time and become unreadable. Heat and sun light can also coause deterioration. Software, speed and type of burner can also have an affect. I still have a Plextor Premium CD only burner in my compuer. This is all basic stuff that every old Grateful Dead fan knows. |
A lot of CD copies do sound better than the original CD. I think it has to do with error correction. Watch a CD spin in a top loader with a window. CDs are not perfectly balanced and will oscillate. I believe this can cause read errors." I believe this can cause read errors." And play/write/replay errors Think about what you said, the errors are still there if you burn them, even more so as then there are two reads and a write with errors from all three. What I posted is correct in my last post, re the pits and the burning v stamped/moulded, there is more errors in the burnt than the stamped/moulded original retail cd, I've checked this with an error counter in a Genisis Digital Time Lens that can give error figure count Cheers George |
nonoise There is a review (that I can’t locate) that explained how a laser reads the physical pits and grooves of a CD. It’s being done in an analog fashion ( a mechanical process) which then had to be processed into the digital domain. >>>Exactly! The pits and lands are non reflective and reflective areas, respectively on the metal layer. The geometry of the pits and lands and laser assembly is such that when the CD laser beam hits a pit the reflection is canceled due to wave interference so the photodetector detects no signal. The photodetector only detects reflected signal from lands. The length of both pits and lands varies and it’s the series of various lengths of pits and lands that determines the digital information in the analog to digital converter. Diagram 1 - CD Laser Reads Bumps (Pits Inverted) and Lands, both of which have reflective metal surfaces. The photodetector receives no signal from bumps, only from lands, due to destructive interference of light waves. See last paragraph below. Pits and Lands come in 9 different lengths, from T3 to T11. T3 = 10001 T4 = 100001 T5 = 1000001 T6 = 10000001 T7 = 100000001 T8 = 1000000001 T9 = 10000000001 T10 = 100000000001 T11 = 1000000000001 since the spiral of pits and lands is Nano scale any vibration or wobble of the CD can force the servo mechanism to go into oscillation, producing read errors. Also the background scattered laser light gets into the photodetector, producing errors. Thus painting the outer edge of the CD Green prior to ripping will produce a better rip. |
Multiple generations of read/writing increases the error count of the original by quite a margin. Once a zero or one (from the previous readable pit) has been substituted for the original unreadable pit, there is no way it can be resurrected to be a readable original. There is always only a downhill slide the more times it read and written. Cheers George |
georgehifi Multiple generations of read/writing increases the error count of the original by quite a margin. Once a zero or one (from the previous readable pit) has been substituted for the original unreadable pit, there is no way it can be resurrected to be a readable original. There is always only a downhill slide the more times it read and written. >>>>Uh, for starters the pits aren’t readable. The highly reflective “land” is actually what sends a return signal back to the photodetector. When the laser beam hits a pit the signal is canceled by wave interference. You know, due to the depth of the pit and the wavelength of the CD laser. Also, neither the pit nor the land is a 1 or a 0. The information contained on the disc doesn’t become 1s and 0s until downstream of the optical read process. The lengths of the pits and lands are variable. So it’s the combination of the length of the pits and lands in certain predetermined sequences that determines the digital data - 1s and 0s - downstream. |
What I originally said to which your twisting, is the burnt pit/land is harder to read and will cause more error correction to happen than the original retail stamped or moulded one. As this photo shows, the difference is clear, that the original on the left will be easier to read and have less errors than both burnt middle and left. Left moulded/stamped retail CD pits Middle and right burnt CD-R pits one gold one normal silver https://www.iasa-web.org/sites/default/files/tc05-fig20.jpg Cheers George |
In your face and musical are just words. They certainly don’t mean the same thing to everyone. I like things to be in your face if that’s how they’re supposed to sound. I don’t like laid back sound if it’s supposed to be more present and dynamic. It all depends. Furthermore just because you find something to be true, which maybe you did, maybe you didn’t, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s univerally true. |
When ripping on a PC, the disk can be read as many times as necessary to get a parity match. If the disc surface has been abused, this could result in a more accurate file. I've heard disks burned on the mastering converter, CD test pressings and the commercial release. All sound different. People on the other side of the planet noticed identical differences on home as opposed to reference quality equipment. IMO, label paint is unscientifically applied and contributes to errors. Some CDP benefit from a Discus or other damping atop the disc. Shock absorbtion is always a good idea for the player. Computer burned discs may or may not match the ripped file depending on the quality of the writer. Almost assuredly, the burned disc will have a shorter life. Ripped and burned discs sound 'different'. Better is in the ear of the beholder. |
“IMO, label paint is unscientifically applied and contributes to errors.” The colors of the label paint can influence the sound. Definitely. The paint might even contain ferrous materials though I’ve certainly never checked. It’s just a hunch. Why else would demagnetizing a CD influence the sound? Now, that I have checked. |
This is very interesting indeed I always wondered why a number of my burned discs sounded "better" than the originals? But I do have to say not all, and now I think on, that could even be down to the blank used. I did have a stack of Fuji and a stack of Maxwell that I used without paying any attention to which for what if you get my drift, were just blanks to me! Some of these have been burned a LONG time ago and are still playing strong. Course hardly play any nowadays what with Tidal and my Vault containing all of my cds ripped to WAV files....... |
In your face and musical are just words. They certainly don’t mean the same thing to everyone. I like things to be in your face if that’s how they’re supposed to sound. I don’t like laid back sound if it’s supposed to be more present and dynamic. Read again, I didn’t say laid back sound, I said "musical" and not in your face (meaning hard/harsh to me). Fact is the odds are going negative, more you burn the more errors there will be, as the laser has difficulty reading the not so clean pit/lands of a burnt CD no matter what blank is used, even though some are better than others. Nothing is as clean as the original stamped/moulded retail cd, as the pics below show. Left moulded/stamped retail CD, pits are clean to read hopefully to be error free Middle and right burnt CD-R pits one gold one normal silver, not clean and can cause errors. https://www.iasa-web.org/sites/default/files/tc05-fig20.jpg Cheers George |
PS: the cd retail stamped vs copy burn pics above comes from Jean-Marc Fontaine just one of digital’s foremost authorities. Here is just a video conference of his which discusses the drive mechs and storage of digital https://vimeo.com/16104280 Cheers George |
Interesting discussion, but what's a CD (grin)? Since moving to PC audio well over a decade ago and having over 100k tracks on a 10tb HD, I haven't listened to one of the little sliver disks in years.... In fact, most of my DVD's and Blu-Rays are also going the way of the CD's -- to a HD and into storage. Back in the day, to confirm what others have said, I did notice a positive difference using a CD damper like Herbie's Grungebuster. I didn't know why nor care, better sound equaled using the Grungebuster. Lastly, from all the posts, ripping and burning CD's may be a sonic improvement for some and in some cases. But it doesn't seem to be consistently positive. At least not enough to rip and burn everything to another disc. If I'm doing that, it would be to a HD and copying to at least another HD for a backup.... |
In fact, most of my DVD’s and Blu-Rays are also going the way of the CD’s -- to a HD and into storage.If you look after them, how many CD’s or DVD’s have failed you, then compare how many Hard Drives have bit the dust. Big difference to me, I’ve lost count how many H/D’s I’ve lost since 1987?, maybe the new solid state ones are better, as yet too small and expensive Yet I still have my original 1982 first CD Love over Gold and it’s still perfect and sounds magnificent as the day it was bought. Cheers George |
georgehifi PS: the cd retail stamped vs copy burn pics above comes from Jean-Marc Fontaine just one of digital’s foremost authorities. >>>Nevertheless, it doesn’t prove anything. This whole is the copy better than the original debate has been around like forever. And undoubtedly it will be around for a whole lot longer. |
@georgehifi Regarding not proving anything, in this case I’ll agree with @geoffkait . Geoff, I’ve read a number of your posts the last few days. Seems you’ve taken what I’ve indicated elsewhere to heart :) George, to your point about CD failure versus hard drive failure, consider though how much more expensive CDs are in comparison to hard drive. So the failure rate of the hard drive is moot as one can easily back up a hard drive versus hundreds or thousands of CDs. Some high level approximate numbers. A CD holds 700mb of data, and most often when burning music to it (80 min) one does not maximizes its capacity. Even when buying in "consumer bulk" quantities of 100 pack spindles of "very good quality", $25 would still be considered a bargain. So, in this example, it costs $25 for 70 gig of storage. I can buy a western digital 8 *terabyte* hard drive for $200. There are a myriad of reasons I’ve abandoned CDs long ago. I still have 4000 though.... |
I still find they are better sounding than a copy "from them" to any other format.Hi George. Not meaning to play on words here, but personally I draw a distinction between a "copy" and a "rip". As I mentioned in my 03-26-2018 1:14pm post, a copy is just that, a copy. So, in the case of a copy, there is only one format - a cda file. And in this instance, I agree with you that the copied cda file should not sound better, all other things being equal (such as the condition of the source and target disk). In fact, ideally if there is nothing wrong with the condition of the source and target disks, they should sound the same (i.e. one should be hard pressed to hear a difference, if any). And I also agree with you about a stamped CD being better, even if only theoretically because of the "more pronounced" pits. Ripping, on the other hand, could (not that it necessarily will) result in a better sounding file, even if only because of the change in playback mechanism. For example, the source cda file can only be played on optical media whereas a rip of that cda file could produce a wav file that when played back via hard drive or usb *could* sound better. This is especially true if ones optical drive is "noisy". |
And in this instance, I agree with you that the copied cda file should not sound betterThis is all I'm saying the more you read write(burn) from a CD the more errors there will be. I don't give a ratz **** about downloaded music as I have yet to hear it compete with CD on a good transport converted by a great R2R Multibit Dac All I'm interested in is PCM Cd's 16/44 and 24/96 or PCM DXD which is only by download Cheers George |
My experience burning 10,000s of CDRs for musicians (masters and copies) on an Alesis Masterlink has been that occasionally, the CDRs will sound better than the original pressed CD. Generally, they sound the same. I've only used TY and Mam-A Gold CDRs since 1990s. However, I demagnetize both surfaces and the player drawer prior to use using a Walker Talisman (easier and quicker than the Acoustic Revive CD1 (now they're up to a CD3 version). Demagnetizing makes a significant difference compared every time versus the difference between a first generation burned CDR and the original pressed disc. Also, it is correct that multiple generation copies sound worse, probably due to R/W errors introduced into the copies. |
Exactly! There are actually a great many ways to make copies the best they can be. It’s not that difficult to make them better than the original. Everything is relative. Of course if you are not into improving digital or improving CDs this discusssion probably isn’t your cup of coffee. ☕️ It’s the same thing for playing ordinary CDs. There are a great many ways to improve how plain old vanilla CDs sound, it really comes down to whether you’re an advanced audiophile or not. From the glassy look in a lotta folks’ eyes I’d guess they probably aren’t. Carry on. 🕺🏻Smoke if ya got em. As for your humble scribe, I prefer not to rule anything in or anything out. I wouldn’t be too terribly surprised if successive copies sounded better and better. |
In my experience, many - but not all - CDs can be improved by being copied to CD-R. Alesis Masterlink does an excellent job, but I've had equally good results using plain old Roxio on a good PC. For CDs which were produced with great care (e.g. JVC XRCD, Reference Recordings) there is usually no improvement. For others, it may be minimal or very significant. I have yet to make a CD-R copy which sounded worse than the original. Robert Harley hears essentially the same thing. Neither of us KNOWS why. Our best mutual guess is that the CD-R copies are clocked more accurately than the originals, reducing jitter. My guess is that these errors are introduced during then physical production of the disc rather than existing in the digital master. (I also find the discussion of reading stamped vs dyed discs interesting.) BTW, I've tried several types of CD-R media. Verbatim 'Vinyl CD-R' s sound the best to me. One last thing... Digital copies do not degrade with each generation, as analog copies do. Reading & writing to magnetic disc is VERY accurate... or computers wouldn't work very well, and couldn't be trusted for business, much less scientific calculation. Even on PC, a dropped bit is extremely rare. (Too bad the operating systems & software aren't as reliable!) |
If I may throw my 2 maybe even 3 cents in on the topic. I do a lot of empirical testing for folks (in the home and recording world). Every copy of a recording I receive sounds different from any other copies, and different from the original Red Book version (including remastered and reissues). For those of you saying one is better than the other, you are correct "with your particular system's EQ setting". Every recording has a different and unique original Recorded Code. Every playback system has it's own unique EQ setting. And every audio signal (Audio Code) that travels down an Audio Chain is variable. No two systems play the same music the same way. It's not so much what is better or worse as much as it is how is your system setup (Tuned) as compared to the next. For example I have several red book, reissues, remasters and copies of the same recordings and they all sound different from each other. However I can tune my system to make them all sound the same depending on how much effort I want to put into the variables. The hobby of playback has been focusing on the variables of playback for a long time, but it's easy to get caught up in that "One Sound System" mentality and forget how flexible playing back music is. I have faulted the industry of High End Audio many times for wearing their blinders and not giving credit to the rest of audio, that is far more variable. Michael Green www.michaelgreenaudio.net |