Do CD-Rs sound better than the original CD?

[miklorsmith]

I was writing while R.L. posted. I don't know why error correction in a CDP can't ferret out the timing problems. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I do know what I hear. "Night and day" would be too strong, but I feel comfortable with "obvious".

 

[Resident Loser]

The thing is...

...and don't get me wrong, I don't purport to be particularly sharp on the subject...but...after the 4channel debacle, when Sony and Philips came up with the standards, it was for comptability of hardware and software from mfr. to mfr...word length, clock speed and all the rest...unless I am grossly mistaken(like THAT never happens) I seem to recall that the recording/playback process are simply the inverse of each other...subject to those parameters as set in the standards...any gross deviation would simply result in an unreadable disc.

I would think that the possibility for slighty out-of-tolerance numbers would be factored into the scheme, as very little in the world is absolutely fixed and immutable. As for clocks and the like, I think those devices oscillate pretty much within spec +/- .ooowhatever%...close enough to make it work.

Soooo, completely ignoring the analog state on both ends, if the signal is recorded at such and such, etc., etc. which complies with the "standards" and is read by the transport in an equal but inverse manner, the digital output is an exact duplicate of the input. You then take that clocked and coherent and buffered digital output and record it on your CD-R and it improves to the point you can tell the difference between a Zildjan and a Paiste?

I find that highly implausible.

Unfortunately, I have read the 6moons deal and it strikes me as more of the scientific factoids tending to lean towards the psuedo-science routine...seen and read similar articles before...but hey, that's just my opinion and I admit to being quite jaded in certain matters. IMO, you would need access to the original output well before it was commited to the CD...and even then, what would it really prove or do? Would better error correction improve things all that much?

With a source CD once it's been read and corrected, it's in the can and there are things that can't be done; it's engraved in polycarbonate...Now you can take that digital output and reshape it with your analog section, but that's a whole 'nother thing...

jimHJJ(...if I've made any errors, I apologize...please correct me if I am laboring under any misconceptions...I'm always willing to learn...)

 

[miklorsmith]

Can't say you've made any errors, although I don't think reading is the inverse of writing. The writing physically reshapes the aluminum whereas reading does not affect the structure of the disc.

I did not say I could tell differences between brands of cymbals. I said I could discern relative sizes by the tones now present in my room. Not the same thing at all.

What I've already written exhausts my knowledge of the subject. Suffice it to say I'm completely sold and would advise anybody else willing to give it a try that there's a whole new world out there for the taking that doesn't require new formats of playback. Your existing collection will take on new life.

I'm with Rob. Not being able to explain it and having it be untrue are different. I'm satisfied with my listening, if not my technical understanding of the background.

I certainly understand the skepticism. Common sense would say this is not possible. That's why I'm willing to give testing a try. I'll post results when I have some.

 

[miklorsmith]

Reading on time-base errors (jitter) from a recording engineer:

http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=28/

 

[Rob Babcock]

I'd certainly be interested in your results, Miklorsmith. I also can't understand why DBT is so "controversial"- I guess it just pushes some peoples buttons. Let's pick a new name, then. How about, "scientific listening test?" If you can reliably tell them apart blind, then obviously you're hearing something. If you can't, that doesn't mean there's not a diff, but merely that you can't hear it. I highly doubt my hearing is any better than yours, though (depending on your age- I'm 35). Unless you've been an artillery officer in the army for 20 years!

 

[miklorsmith]

Have you read the Stereophile letter-compilation on scientific testing? A psychology professor and one of the guys that built the DBX comparator slug it out. It's above my head.

http://www.stereophile.com/features/141/

I've read many articles on both sides of the fence. Beyond the dogma (thanks NYJ), there seems to be a legitimate debate about whether it actually works.

Throw all this in with my personal experience, which is that highly revealing systems show many changes which have been "scientifically" disproven by others' rigorous science. I can't say I categorically deny the scientific method in this context, but if I fail to hear the difference between the CD's in my blind test here, I'll go a big step further in that direction.

Scientists have proven bumblebees can't fly.

 

[Rob Babcock]

That's not quite true- scientists don't understand how a bee can fly, but you can easily prove that they can. DBT is exactly like that- a bee shouldn't be able to fly, but we can easily test (DBT) to prove it can. A CD-R shouldn't be able to sound better, but a DBT could easily prove whether or not our understanding is right.

DBT- the term seems to inflame some people beyond all reason. No one ever said you needed to use a ABX Comparator to do a DBT. Nor is it written in stone that you must compare 5 second snippets of sound. In fact, the single requirement of a valid DBT (setting aside the specifics) is that neither the subject nor the one conductor of the experiment know what they're listening to. If you can only hear something when you know you're supposed to be able to, how can you be sure what you're hearing is real? A good example (and one that leaves AV_Phile trembing in shock)- imagine you have a buddy over to listen to your new Nordost Valhalla ICs. He waxes poetic about the liquid sound, the dirigibles-full of air, the sweetness of the treble, ad nauseum. But imagine that you don't actually have Nordost cables, and the mere expectation of sound due to the reputation of the manufacturers led to the incredible sound? Do you think they'll sound different to him once he knows. If so, what has changed?

So I say, calling it "dogma" is simply admitting to being too "chicken" to put your Golden Ear Rep on the line. It's preparing your excuses in advance, when you know you can't back up your claims.

At any rate, I'm still curious how you tests go.

 

[miklorsmith]

Did you read the psychologist's analysis of why standard testing methodologies are skewed toward null results? It relates to statistics and why normal quantities of tests do not allow fair conclusions. His paper postulates that many, many, many tests (many more than are ever conducted) would be needed to make accurate statements.

The flip side with the DBX Comparator engineer does not sing the praises of his device, but of the validity of testing previously done.

I agree with your reasoning and your scenario with cables raises valid questions. You don't hear with your eyes. Further, there is no doubt there is a steep, diminishing-return curve in audio.

The dogma I referred to was on both sides of the aisle in the amplifier debate and NYJ called it. It was not a shot at you or anyone else.

No matter how we do these tests, they are going to be a pain. That's the biggest problem I personally have with trying my hand at it. The other thing is that I'm constantly tweaking things. Some are good, some less so. If I have to figure out how to test everything I do, my "productivity" will decline 90%. This prospect is most unappealing.

I also have a feeling the human brain is the weakest part of the equation (short aural memory), although this is purely speculation.

 

[Rob Babcock]

I didn't take it as a shot at me. Unfortunately, my use of the written word fails to convey the subtlties of meaning. I certainly wouldn't hold the ABX comparator up as foolproof, nor do I have an opinion on the methodologies of most of the tests that get bantied about on the forums. I simply feel that, given the "perfect" test (yeah, yeah, I know... ) if you can't hear a difference without relying on cues other than audible ones, then what you think you hear is probably imaginary. I didn't really mean for the CD-R topic to mutate into an in-depth discussion of DBT, but since it has...

Once criticism of DBT from Golden Ears is that differences may only become apparent over long periods of time. They never provide any empiracal evidence to reinforce that opinion, but no matter- let's assume for the moment that it's true (as it may be). Where is it written that a DBT must be done in 5 minutes? Providing that the double blind nature of the test isn't compromised, there's no reason why you couldn't conduct it over hours/days/months. My [admittedly unscientific] hunch is that the duration won't matter a whit, or won't matter very much. Most of the research I've heard of indicates auditory memory/perception doesn't work that way. If I can't tell one can of Coke from one can of Pepsi, I really doubt I'll be any more certain after a case of each. [Now taste and hearing don't necessarily function the same, but that's an easy to grasp analogy].

At the very minimum, even the briefest DBT should easily allow the Golden Ear to detect those differences that are "night & day" and "so obvious you'd have to be deaf not to hear." If differences in _________(fill in your favorite subject here) are as blatently obvious as they always claim, then why have we never seen this demonstrated before?

Anyway, you wouldn't need an ABX compator in the instance of, say, cables. It's used for convencience, mostly. To give the subject a fair shot at hearing any differences, science shows the switch must occur within 2 seconds (the amount of audio memory our brains can store). Of course, many Golden Ears claim to be able to make precise comparisons between listening sessions weeks apart, to this precaution might be wholly unnecessary.

One could certainly arrange for a test of CD vs CD-R without too much difficulty. Naturally, the person putting the disc in the player will know which is which- you'd want at least 3 people to insure a true DOUBLE BLIND test. Short of that, at least have someone else switch discs without telling you which is which. Hopefully someone with a good "poker face" that conciously try not to give any nonverbal clues. Naturally, it would be best to have 2 identical CD players synched up, but that introduces a host of problems for the average guy to tackle (eg are the players "truly" identical? how closely can you synch the time? etc.).

There's a lot of rumor an innuendo in our hobby, and the ol' "black CD-Rs sound better" legend has insinuated itself very deeply into the audio subconscious. I think one of the partners in the newly-rechristened Genesis Audio is responsible for the popularity of this notion, although by now many audio gurus have also aped this view. We've seen in history that the peristent belief in something doesn't make it true (eg the old belief that the Earth was flat). Yet it seems like this would be something we could easily put to the test, providing enough interest in the topic. How about it? Would you guys be interested in seeing the Audioholics staff tackle this one? I'd trust them to devise and perform a much better test than I have the means to conduct. What say you, Gene?

 

[miklorsmith]

My plan is to shuffle the CD's with my eyes closed and push play. I'll stash the other one. This may not be scientifically rigorous, but I won't cheat. The first threshold will be original vs. copy. I'll also be trying numerous types of blanks which have gotten good press. Maxell Audio Pro, Maxell Audio Gold, and Mitsui (MAM-A) Gold are all on their way to chez Miklorsmith. I'm using Memorex Blacks now because I can't find any other blacks. If anyone knows where to get the Melodys, let me know!!

If you're going to do a test, make sure you set up your burning station right. There are many variables, all of which I suspect have an influence on the result. For instance, Mr. Koh specified to me that other power conditioners are inadequate to power the burner and that a regenerator (PS Audio Power Plant) is a necessary ingredient. A dedicated computer and quality software package are also prudent.

I can't speak to which of these things will have the biggest impact, as I rode the coattails of those that came before. Hey - my gain! However, each part may have an indiscernable impact that additively creates alchemy.

If you guys want to initiate a "real" test, cool. Let me know which blanks you like best.

 

[dlorde]

That's not quite true- scientists don't understand how a bee can fly, but you can easily prove that they can.

That's a bit of a myth - scientists understand very well how bumblebees can fly, it's just that you can't use the same kind of aerodynamics that you would apply to model planes and larger objects (because bumblebees generate lift from vortices not aerofoils, and because air appears more viscous to something the size of a bumblebee)

 

[miklorsmith]

Good stuff. I didn't know the viscosity element. My point was that a hundred years ago, they really didn't know enough about aerodynamics to show scientifically that they could fly. The fact that it is now understood reinforces my point, perfectly.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

Sounds like a decent "at home" test. Props for taking it on!

Just for grins and vaguely related to this thread, I found this amusing take on the "green marker" CD tweak on another forum recently:

Hey, no green pen bashing.

I swear by them! Of course, there are differences in the ink formulation and application methods.

I prefer ink made from the green fungus that grows on the northen face (that's the Tibetan side)of K2. Of this variety, the clear winner is the strain grown by munks [sic] using Yak dung imported from Argentina. I find this variety gives a noticably wider and deeper sound stage. Recordings of the Monks chanting are particularly well served.

For application, I send all of my disks to Fat Eddy. He's a biker in Key West Florida who does tattoos on the side. His impression of the ink was the same as mine, however, he discovered during a tattoo session one day, that the trace metallic elements in the Yak dung responded and aligned themselves to the earth's magnetic field in the Key West area. Comparing disks that he coated in Key West (he uses his tattoo tools to coat the disks)with identical disks that he coated at Tattoo conventions in Paris and Jakarta, demonstrated the CLEAR superiority of those coated in Key West, which is, of course, at the western most side of the Bermuda Triangle.

IMHO

Good article on jitter from what I could understand. Seems that interesting things happen with DAT (digital audio tape) -- but who outside of the recording biz uses that? Bottom line seems to be: as far as Joe Audiophile and his kit is concerned, fuhgeddaboutit.

As for the Sterophile kerfuffle, I found the most cogent responses to be those of mssrs. Nousaine and Carlstrom. Of course my own bias plays a part here! Carlstrom is the prez of the local audio club I recently joined. Judging the merit of the stats argument is beyond me, I admit.

 

[Mr.T]

I really enjoyed your intelligent conversations about possible methods of improving CD copying from the original, I certainly learned a lot of therminology, methods and possibilties, but I still think as I had said before in one of my thread that, it all depends how good the original CD was made.

If the original CD was made intelligently by using the latest technics, good equipment and materials, than trying to improve the quality of sound/Video on a copy it will be almost impossible.

But if the original has room for improvement, I am sure there will always methods of improving the original. Simple explanations of that, are the old classic movies that movie companies want to preserve and improve the quality of the video and sound by digitize them, and even adding color on some of the B/W movies like "The Wizard of Oz".

So, as you can see going back to my original thread, if there is room for improvement when copying an original CD, then it could be improved. But if the original was made properly with the best equipment, technics and materials, in my opinion it will be almost impossible to improve a copy CD.

Mr.T

 

[miklorsmith]

One of the tenets of this hypothesis is that different blanks are distinguishable. 6moons claims to be working on a "Black Blank Shootout". If this is true, it would also be true that the blanks must sound different from the original. If they sound different from the original, it is certainly possible that some will sound better, even if the original had "perfect" timing.

It is true that some originals are pressed better than others. Therefore, according to the now-infamous paper, better blanks are necessary to achieve positive results. Improvements are still possible however. I would speculate that this relates to 1) the burning process may actually be better for recording timing information, and 2) the media can be chosen by the user for maximum readability.

Even if all this is hooey, wouldn't you like your badly pressed CD's to sound better?

 

[rfcnyc]

As someone who has spent a bit of time chasing down a lot of audio tweaks (power conditioners, interconnects, power cords, jitter-reduction devices, mechanical isolation tables, RF filters, green paint, etc.), I've found that most of the tweaks do result in an incrementally different sound. So when I first heard about black CDs, I gave them a try.

I have found that copies made from black CD-Rs do sound less "digital" and more musical. I think that the reasons for this have partly to do with how the CDP interacts with the black-CD-copy (some of which have been referred to in this thread). In the past, I've noticed an improvement in sound when I've used the green-paint edge-treatment. From a layman's perspective, I attributed the effect to a likely reduction in the amount of laser scatter. In hearing a similar improvement in black CDs, I suspect that the amount of laser scatter is being further reduced.

Subsequently, I treated the edges of the black CDs with the green marker, and I applied the Vivid surface treatement (by Walker audio). With each step, I heard an incremental improvement. Since both these steps affect a laser's interaction with the CD, I continue to think that some type of an optical effect is at work.

This is only one part of the overall equation. I have heard improvements with subsequent generations of black-CD copies, and I have heard a difference between using Windows Media Player software and the EAC software to burn the black-CD copy on my laptop (run on battery power).

So, it seems to me that there is more than one thing going on, and each can affect the sound in their own way. In the end though, I do believe people can hear a difference when there is one, even though there may be multiple reasons why something should or should not sound different. The proof is in the experience. I look forward to reading about other variations upon the theme.

 

[miklorsmith]

Right on! Another believer!!

I haven't forgotten about the testing - thing is my system is undergoing a transformation currently. Hard to benchmark anything when it's changing. Speakers come tomorrow. After a little adjustment period, I will sit down and give it a whirl. Hopefully, I'll be able to rope some friends in to increase my statistical sample size.

I got some Mitsui gold discs - they sound different from the Memorex blacks (Prodisc and CMC Magnetics - same exact packaging!). Before buying them, I was told that they sound more "solid state", where the blacks sound more like tubes. I agree with this comparison. More detailed, but perhaps a bit less fluid. I also have some Maxell Pros, but I haven't burned anything on them yet.

More to come.

 

[MDS]

There are only 3 types of dyes used for cd-r: cyanine, pthalocyanine, and azo. The color of the disc results from the combination of the type of dye and the reflective layer, either silver or gold. Cyanine plus silver results in the light green discs, pthalocyanine plus gold results in the light blue color. Azo discs are usually blue.
The black discs just have different pigment added to the dye to make it appear - it might by cyanine, pthalocyanine, or azo - you won't know. All brands buy their blanks from 2 manufacturers and each batch may possibly use a different dye - whichever one is cheapest when they buy in bulk.

There have been studies that show minor differences in longevity and degree of reflection; eg cyanine discs play better in older players with lower power lasers, but essentially the difference between them all is ZERO.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

...More detailed, but perhaps a bit less fluid...

See, now, this is the kind of thing that drives us objective types nuts! What the blankety-blank does that mean as far as sound anyway? Does it mean the same thing to you as to another listener? Does it mean anything at all to anyone but the person using the term?

Yes, I can and do describe music or performance in those terms -- if I say so and so's phrasing is "fluid" another music lover will have an inkling of what I mean - but even then not precisely. But we can at least agree what is meant by "fluid" by correlating the term to accepted, established musical terms like legato that have a quite specific meaning. We might then understand that we mean, say, that Stern's legato phrasing was more fluid than Heifetz's -and perhaps proceed to have a fine argument about that! But we know and understand the terms of the discussion, at least. Music is all about subjective and aesthetic judgments. Audio, at least to people like me, ain't.

If my CDs, amps, speakers, or interconnects are making my recordings sound "fluid", then there's probably something fishy going on! I sure hope they aren't adding legato where there is none! (I think that was called "wow and flutter" back in the vinyl and analog tape days).

 

[miklorsmith]

OK - like tubes vs. solid state. The Mitsuis seem to accentuate small details, make them more apparent (solid state). The Memorexes seem to have a more relaxed, organic sound. These are my first impressions.

I didn't know what "legato" meant. My dictionary says that it relates to music: "smooth and connected, without breaks between the successive tones (opposed to staccato)". This is not what I meant.

I apologize if my terminology is inadequate to convey meaning. I try. I don't want to write a flowery review about lifting veils and coupling with the air. How many (long) reviews truly convey what anything sounds like? I'd rather say nothing in 10 words than 1000.