is possible a perfect audio copy?
- Thread starter Mantra
- Start date
I'm with the "close but not quite" crowd.....I agree that the quality of the CDR as well as the reader/writer effect things as well.......Finally read/write speed also has an effect......I think anyone who claims its a perfect copy doesnt own that good of equipment or cant hear too well cause there aint nuttin' perfect in the audio jungle......I understand black CDR's are sought after by audiophiles and I intend to purchase my first batch to test this out......more later and take care of your originals so that your burns will indeed benefit
bode said:They musn't make CDs like they used to! In 1983 you could bite them, throw them across the room, even eat your dinner off them! I have photographic proof
bode
True, but you are forgetting something!
the reason it is still possible to playback a damaged CD is because of Solomon Reed Interleave Code - it's an algorithm which reconstructs a signal if bits are missing from the data stream, by extrapolating (it's a beautifully elegant algorithm - if you haven't seen it, you really should do yourself a favour and research if for ten minutes). Now, in THEORY, and provided there aren't TOO many bits missing from the data stream, the algorithm can perfectly reconstruct the signal as it was originally recorded. HOWEVER, in the real world of physical electronics, damaged disks introduce several major problems to a CD player, most notably:
Digital Jitter - this creates an imperfect waveform, which is basically more "noisy" in digital terms.
On a decent Hi-Fi (and I mean REAL Hi-Fi, not Comet's abuse of the term to cover anything from Walkmans to Washing Machines), this digital jitter will be audible in the analogue output as a "muddying" of the music, or a coarsening of the music, the subjective effects depending on the quality, design, and specific implementation of the circuitry in the particular player you are listening to.
So, in short, yes - a damaged disk WILL still play, provided it hasn't exceeded the threshold of what S.R.I.C. can accomodate, but in the real world, the electronics will have difficulty keeping the signal clean in the digital, and subsequently, the analogue domains.
CDrZeus.
That's about how long it would take to do an archival backup of an lp with your tape deck, isn't it?
On the other hand, you ought to be able to burn at 2x or 4x without serious deterioration of the sound quality. Perhaps that would help you speed things up.
On the other hand, you ought to be able to burn at 2x or 4x without serious deterioration of the sound quality. Perhaps that would help you speed things up.
Are not music cd's made up of digital data? Bits? ones & zeros? I've come to understand that unless there is something wrong w/ the cd-burner or media, there should be no diffence between a music cd original & a copy. The exact sum of bits should be read on both cd's THE SAME, done that the copy is done on a 1:1 basis (ie: clonecd,nero,nti....).
I remember back sometime when some audiophiles argue that painting the cd blue w/ a marker & adding weight to the outer rim improved somehow audio playback. Today we know better. 1:1 copies done w/ software built for that purpose should give no less than an exact DIGITAL copy, unless copy protection methods (such as macrovision) are employed. Warping effects on audio from analog sources such as inteference or diferent burning methods, should give no diference in a digital copy -- unless this a part of a copy protection scheme.
Last edited:
Even burners supplied with a (theoretically) 100% perfect signal, introduce their own errors. This is just one of many reasons why some burners appear to burn faster than others, even though they are sold as being of a specific speed. This difference is partly attributable to the error-correction parameters which the manufacturer coded into the firmware (some use more thorough routines).
Wherever you have physical/mechanical elements, you will always have some margin for error, without which there would be no reason to create error correction strategies in the first place!
When Phillips said "Perfect Digital Data" what they REALLY meant was "perfect to all intents and purposes", which is not quite the same thing, I'm sure you'll agree.
There was a British company some years back (who might still be in existence, but I can't say I've heard of them for quite some time now - they were/are called 'Trichord'), whose business was/is based upon after-market modifications of Hi-Fi cd players. Not in any dubious sense, but in the sense of improving the sound quality. And what was their method? They simply addressed the issue of digital clock jitter, by designing a much lower (digital) noise clock, creating a better synchronisation between transport and DAC clocks. I can assure you that the effects of these circuits can be clearly demonstrated through the use of an oscilloscope, and through the listening of a seasoned pair of human ears (i.e. an audiophile).
CDrZeus.
Wherever you have physical/mechanical elements, you will always have some margin for error, without which there would be no reason to create error correction strategies in the first place!
When Phillips said "Perfect Digital Data" what they REALLY meant was "perfect to all intents and purposes", which is not quite the same thing, I'm sure you'll agree.
There was a British company some years back (who might still be in existence, but I can't say I've heard of them for quite some time now - they were/are called 'Trichord'), whose business was/is based upon after-market modifications of Hi-Fi cd players. Not in any dubious sense, but in the sense of improving the sound quality. And what was their method? They simply addressed the issue of digital clock jitter, by designing a much lower (digital) noise clock, creating a better synchronisation between transport and DAC clocks. I can assure you that the effects of these circuits can be clearly demonstrated through the use of an oscilloscope, and through the listening of a seasoned pair of human ears (i.e. an audiophile).
CDrZeus.
Last edited:
I think it's always good to read the threads in www.hydrogenaudio.org, there have been many of this kind, and there I've seen some myths related to audio fall apart because of the lack of scientific base and proof, and because of the psychological factor that tends to have a high influence in this audio matters.
If you're looking at the £1,000 mark, then also check out the Densen amps. These Danish amps have a gorgeously open, detailed, rhythmic, and "real " sound. Audio Excellence stock them, I think. If you are brave enough to go for a kit amp, then go for the John Linsley Hood integrated amp, available from Hart Electronics, in Oswestry. I built this amp, and, for £400 you really do get a stonking bargain. This integrated amp will confidently compete with £1,200 pre/power combos, and can be upgraded, as and when you wish, to slaves or even monoblocs. Sadly, there is no website, but Electronics World Magazine often carry their advertisements. Mine drives my isobaric Dynaudio/Scanspeak monitors with real guts, which is pretty impressive since they have a nominal impedance of just over 3 ohms. This would choke many amps!bode said:I haven't had a good listening session in ages! I would probably spend about £1000 on an amp, so I will have to see what's on offer these days.
One day I shall own that valve amp I promised myself
CDrZeus.