CD-R Audio Quality ???

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Hi,

Wondering about the audio quality of a home-made CD disc if I make it the
following way:

* Copy the desired audio files (in full AIFF format) off the original
store-bought CDs and onto my computer's hard drive. I've done this on my Mac
desktop (running OSX) by simply dragging the audio files (tracks) from the
original CD to a new folder

* Using Toast Lite to create an audio disc on a CD-R

These new home-made "Greatest Hits" discs will be played back on my
fine-quality audio system (Arcam, Audio Physic, etc.).

Since I'm using full-blown AIFF files (that is, no compression like MP3s),
will the sound quality on the home-made disc exactly match the original
store-bought disc?

Or is there something I'm missing in the process?

Any thoughts or opinions appreciated.

David
cycleman23@earthlink.net

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:19:27 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <QKqdnXEOi4G-BKXcRVn-qg@comcast.com> ):
Hi,

Thanks for the feedback, Arny. The disc works (as in plays), but what are
some possible "faults that are more subtle"? I mean, I'm not sure if the
sound quality is as good as the original, hence my original post.

This is a new audio CD player, an Arcam CD93.

David


> "David Hallerman" <dhallerman@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:4J0_c.4358$Vl5.3557@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
>> Hi,
>>
>> Wondering about the audio quality of a home-made CD disc if I make it
>> the following way:
>
>> * Copy the desired audio files (in full AIFF format) off the original
>> store-bought CDs and onto my computer's hard drive. I've done this on
>> my Mac desktop (running OSX) by simply dragging the audio files
>> (tracks) from the original CD to a new folder
>
>> * Using Toast Lite to create an audio disc on a CD-R
>
>> These new home-made "Greatest Hits" discs will be played back on my
>> fine-quality audio system (Arcam, Audio Physic, etc.).
>
>> Since I'm using full-blown AIFF files (that is, no compression like
>> MP3s), will the sound quality on the home-made disc exactly match the
>> original store-bought disc?
>>
>> Or is there something I'm missing in the process?
>
> Your procedure sounds good, but there's a hidden agenda. Not every audio CD
> player is perfectly happy with CD-Rs of a given brand and production lot,
> and when made using your choice of burning speed, etc. Some may reject any
> and all CD-Rs. Others will have faults that are more subtle than "Just plain
> won't work".
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Gee, isn't this a friendly Usenet group?

Cost me a dollar? Heck, that's a Canadian dollar, if you say it, which I
believe is discounted versus the US dollar.

And if I'm not certain about the difference? And if I want to understand the
process?

David, who finds in the rec.bicycles.tech newsgroup a clear question gets a
clear answer and not passing the buck

=====

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:04:34 -0400, RichieBee wrote
(in article <cha5et$fsj$1@coranto.ucs.mun.ca> ):

> It'll cost you a dollar to find out.
>
> If you can't tell the difference, it's good enough.
>
>
> R.
>
>
> --
> www.richiebee.ca
> Scenic Newfoundland :: MM Fireworks Resources :: My Music
> www.funkydory.ca
> funkysoulgroovedancemachine
> "David Hallerman" <dhallerman@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:4J0_c.4358$Vl5.3557@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> Hi,
>>
>> Wondering about the audio quality of a home-made CD disc if I make it the
>> following way:
>>
>> * Copy the desired audio files (in full AIFF format) off the original
>> store-bought CDs and onto my computer's hard drive. I've done this on my
> Mac
>> desktop (running OSX) by simply dragging the audio files (tracks) from the
>> original CD to a new folder
>>
>> * Using Toast Lite to create an audio disc on a CD-R
>>
>> These new home-made "Greatest Hits" discs will be played back on my
>> fine-quality audio system (Arcam, Audio Physic, etc.).
>>
>> Since I'm using full-blown AIFF files (that is, no compression like MP3s),
>> will the sound quality on the home-made disc exactly match the original
>> store-bought disc?
>>
>> Or is there something I'm missing in the process?
>>
>> Any thoughts or opinions appreciated.
>>
>> David
>> cycleman23@earthlink.net
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Ah, then.

So if the CD-R plays, and there are no aural glitches like those you mention
("skips, tics, pops, bursts of distortion, drop-outs" ), then the
computer-made copy is as good, sonically, as the original store-bought disc?

Thanks.

=====


On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 13:14:44 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <aZmdnXAYupSFO6XcRVn-pA@comcast.com> ):

> "David Hallerman" <dhallerman@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news51_c.4380$Vl5.1998@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:19:27 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article <QKqdnXEOi4G-BKXcRVn-qg@comcast.com> ):
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback, Arny. The disc works (as in plays), but what
>> are some possible "faults that are more subtle"? I mean, I'm not sure
>> if the sound quality is as good as the original, hence my original
>> post.
>
> Possibilities are generally not all that subtle, just subtle compared to
> simply not working.
>
> I'm talking about skips, tics, pops, bursts of distortion, drop-outs etc.
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

David Hallerman <dhallerman@verizon.net> wrote:

> So if the CD-R plays, and there are no aural glitches like those you mention
> ("skips, tics, pops, bursts of distortion, drop-outs" ), then the
> computer-made copy is as good, sonically, as the original store-bought disc?

A Finder copy wont use the error correction data of the CD. An iTunes
import will if you set that option in its preferences (import). You can
import to AIFF, WAV or Apple lossless and the files are also directly
accessible from the Finder.

/Lars


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

David Hallerman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Wondering about the audio quality of a home-made CD disc if I make it the
> following way:
>
> * Copy the desired audio files (in full AIFF format) off the original
> store-bought CDs and onto my computer's hard drive. I've done this on my Mac
> desktop (running OSX) by simply dragging the audio files (tracks) from the
> original CD to a new folder
>
> * Using Toast Lite to create an audio disc on a CD-R
>
> These new home-made "Greatest Hits" discs will be played back on my
> fine-quality audio system (Arcam, Audio Physic, etc.).
>
> Since I'm using full-blown AIFF files (that is, no compression like MP3s),
> will the sound quality on the home-made disc exactly match the original
> store-bought disc?
>
> Or is there something I'm missing in the process?
>
> Any thoughts or opinions appreciated.
>
> David
> cycleman23@earthlink.net
>
I find that computer CD-readers often do not get the audio data in as
well as I would like. Part of this might be because CD-audio is stored
in a non computer like way. Not in a hierarchical file structure but as
a continuous stream.
When the CD does not read easily - due to scratches, peanut butter etc.
- errors (minor pops or clicks) may appear in the (digital!) audio data
without even an error message on your screen.
Even if the reading process performs the CD error handling correctly the
data stored on you HD can be different from data originally recorded on
the CD. The error handling allows for this (error concealment).

The audio data on your hard disk can be correctly burned onto a CD-R,
but when that is read in your CD-player error handling is done once
again. So for the second time the audio that is played may not be
exactly as recorded. Since CD-R is not exactly a CD according to the Red
Book standard, some CD-players may have difficulty in reading those.

my regards,

Bert Kraaijpoel

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

ansermetniac wrote:
>
> Arny is trying to show you how much he thinks he knows. The simple
> answer to your question is that the copy is a bit for bit copy. Of
> course there may be some loss. But even your dog cannot hear it. The
> loss is what the cd ripper can and cannot read. Don't worry about
> blanks and burn speed. If it works it works.
>
> Abbedd

And Abbedd is showing how much he doesn't know. Every read of an audio CD
ivolves errors, some correctable, and some not (which are 'fixed' by
interpolation and in extreme cases momentary muting).

If it was a bit-for-bit copy, where is the loss you mention that the dog
cannot hear ?

But the bottom line is that it's as good a copy as you are going to get, and
unless there is some notibale problem, there is no problem

geoff

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Detector195 wrote:
> David Hallerman <dhallerman@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:<4J0_c.4358$Vl5.3557@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
>
>> Any thoughts or opinions appreciated.
>
> If you buy the blank CD-R's that are slightly green, then you don't
> need to use the green magic marker ;-)
>
> I have another problem copying CD's. My children have destroyed a
> couple of my favorite disks, mainly by badly scratching them. Is there
> a technique for polishing out the scratches? Granted, I don't expect
> anything to work on tooth marks.

Yeah, with varying degrees of success - you can buy them at most music
stores here. But not on the rear surface....

geoff

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

David,

> will the sound quality on the home-made disc exactly match the original <

I agree with those who say you'll either have audible problems like clicks
and pops, or no problems at all. But one thing nobody mentioned is that it's
REALLY EASY for you to determine the quality of your copy. Simply extract an
AIFF file from the copy, and do a bit comparison with the original file.

Note that a bit comparison will fail if there's an extra 1/1000th second of
silence added to the start of the copy, or some other difference that has
nothing to do with audio quality. In that case you can instead do the "null"
test on the two files. Load them side by side into a DAW program, line up
the tracks in time so they're aligned perfectly (to one sample), then flip
the polarity of one track. When you play the two tracks at the same volume,
if the tracks are identical you'll hear silence.

--Ethan

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> writes:

> "David Hallerman" <dhallerman@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:iO1_c.4418$Vl5.892@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
>> Ah, then.
>>
>> So if the CD-R plays, and there are no aural glitches like those you
>> mention ("skips, tics, pops, bursts of distortion, drop-outs" ), then
>> the computer-made copy is as good, sonically, as the original
>> store-bought disc?
>
> Right, the same bits get sent to the DACs with the same exact timing.

So you're saying that if it's a perfect copy then it's a perfect
copy?

The phenomenom I haven't seen anyone mention is the following. When
the new disc is read, there may or may not be errors in the raw
bits on the CD. However, there is a lot of forward error correction
on a CD, so depending on how many bit errors there are and where
they are, they may or may not be correctable.

If all errors are correctable by the FEC, then the disc will play
back perfectly, EXACTLY as the original.

If an uncorrectable bit error occurs, the result may or may not
be audible depending on the nature of the error and the masking
that may have been performed by the player.

There may be software out there that can tell you if there are
uncorrectable errors on the copied CD. Try a google.
--
% Randy Yates % "How's life on earth?
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % ... What is it worth?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)',
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Randy Yates" <yates@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:n006ul2q.fsf@ieee.org
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> writes:
>
>> "David Hallerman" <dhallerman@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:iO1_c.4418$Vl5.892@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
>>> Ah, then.
>>>
>>> So if the CD-R plays, and there are no aural glitches like those you
>>> mention ("skips, tics, pops, bursts of distortion, drop-outs" ), then
>>> the computer-made copy is as good, sonically, as the original
>>> store-bought disc?
>>
>> Right, the same bits get sent to the DACs with the same exact timing.
>
> So you're saying that if it's a perfect copy then it's a perfect
> copy?

Yes.

> The phenomenom I haven't seen anyone mention is the following. When
> the new disc is read, there may or may not be errors in the raw
> bits on the CD. However, there is a lot of forward error correction
> on a CD, so depending on how many bit errors there are and where
> they are, they may or may not be correctable.

> If all errors are correctable by the FEC, then the disc will play
> back perfectly, EXACTLY as the original.

Agreed.

> If an uncorrectable bit error occurs, the result may or may not
> be audible depending on the nature of the error and the masking
> that may have been performed by the player.

Agreed.

> There may be software out there that can tell you if there are
> uncorrectable errors on the copied CD. Try a google.

IME uncorrectable errors are random. Therefore, if you rip the same track
twice, and get consistent results, there were no uncorrectable errors.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Randy Yates" <yates@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:n006ul2q.fsf@ieee.org...
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> writes:
>
> > "David Hallerman" <dhallerman@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:iO1_c.4418$Vl5.892@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
> >> Ah, then.
> >>
> >> So if the CD-R plays, and there are no aural glitches like those you
> >> mention ("skips, tics, pops, bursts of distortion, drop-outs" ), then
> >> the computer-made copy is as good, sonically, as the original
> >> store-bought disc?
> >
> > Right, the same bits get sent to the DACs with the same exact timing.
>
> So you're saying that if it's a perfect copy then it's a perfect
> copy?
>
> The phenomenom I haven't seen anyone mention is the following. When
> the new disc is read, there may or may not be errors in the raw
> bits on the CD. However, there is a lot of forward error correction
> on a CD, so depending on how many bit errors there are and where
> they are, they may or may not be correctable.
>
> If all errors are correctable by the FEC, then the disc will play
> back perfectly, EXACTLY as the original.
>
> If an uncorrectable bit error occurs, the result may or may not
> be audible depending on the nature of the error and the masking
> that may have been performed by the player.
>
> There may be software out there that can tell you if there are
> uncorrectable errors on the copied CD. Try a google.

Nero CD-DVD Speed (bundled with most recent versions of Nero Burning Rom or
Nero Express) as well as testing drive performance can test the surface
quality of CD's for correctable and uncorrectable errors. There are a few
other tools too. A good example of a fairly comprehensive set of tests for a
drive/disk at the following site: (example review of a LiteOn DVD-Burner)

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Re [...] cleId=9221

The methodology and software tools used would be equaly applicable to
testing the disks as well.

Another angle I havn't seen mentioned is that making a copy of a less than
perfect CD can often *improve* the playback quality on many CD players. How
? It's been my experience that good quality CD-R writer drives can read
damaged cd's better than normal CD players can - so much so that in one
particular instance I had a CD that was slightly scratched that had quite
bad noise bursts and a bit of mistracking on one of the songs when played on
most normal CD players, but when copying the CD, the resulting copy played
perfectly without audible problems on the same CD player that had difficulty
with the original disk.

During the copy I could tell the drive was having trouble reading the disk,
and like most writer drives, it will slow right down as slow as 1x speed if
necessary and try several times to extract a piece of bad data. Once the
data is extracted error free, it can then be freshly written to a
non-scratched disk.

Of course the reverse can be true too - if your CD-R writing drive isn't too
hot at reading audio CD's (or is getting a bit old and cranky) it may
introduce read errors into the data stream which can then only be masked by
interpolation, and may result in clicks.

Regards,
Simon

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:IqOdnef2aMTTbKTcRVn-uA@comcast.com...
> "Randy Yates" <yates@ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:n006ul2q.fsf@ieee.org
> > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> writes:
> >
> >> "David Hallerman" <dhallerman@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >> news:iO1_c.4418$Vl5.892@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
> >>> Ah, then.
> >>>
> >>> So if the CD-R plays, and there are no aural glitches like those you
> >>> mention ("skips, tics, pops, bursts of distortion, drop-outs" ), then
> >>> the computer-made copy is as good, sonically, as the original
> >>> store-bought disc?
> >>
> >> Right, the same bits get sent to the DACs with the same exact timing.
> >
> > So you're saying that if it's a perfect copy then it's a perfect
> > copy?
>
> Yes.
>
> > The phenomenom I haven't seen anyone mention is the following. When
> > the new disc is read, there may or may not be errors in the raw
> > bits on the CD. However, there is a lot of forward error correction
> > on a CD, so depending on how many bit errors there are and where
> > they are, they may or may not be correctable.
>
> > If all errors are correctable by the FEC, then the disc will play
> > back perfectly, EXACTLY as the original.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > If an uncorrectable bit error occurs, the result may or may not
> > be audible depending on the nature of the error and the masking
> > that may have been performed by the player.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > There may be software out there that can tell you if there are
> > uncorrectable errors on the copied CD. Try a google.
>
> IME uncorrectable errors are random. Therefore, if you rip the same track
> twice, and get consistent results, there were no uncorrectable errors.

Errm, thats flawed reasoning, as it depends on how the ripping/copying
software is configued to behave in the event of "uncorrectable errors". If
its configured to stop on uncorrectable errors, then you'll know about the
error and the copy won't proceed. A lot of software though, is configured by
default to retry a few times, but if it can't read something with
uncorrectable errors then it will interpolate the data in a similar way to a
normal CD player, and this "incorrect" but "near enough" data will be
written to the new CD. In this case the interpolation is likely to be the
same each time, so you'll get a consistent, but wrong result.

It also depends on how truthful the drive itself is about errors. Having
done a lot of ripping in the past, its only been in the last few years that
most drives have been able to extract "bit accurate" data from Redbook Audio
CD tracks, before that it was a pretty hit and miss affair, and the chances
of getting a bit perfect copy of an audio cd that wasn't in pristine
condition were pretty remote. These days with modern drives and software it
is the norm however.

Regards,
Simon

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:CPKdncBrKa0ia6TcRVn-gg@comcast.com...
> Got to be careful with this because alignment within one sample of
nominally
> identical files can still lead to instantaneous differences on the order
of
> FS. If the files come from the analog domain by separate paths, there is
> almost zero chance of perfect alignment.

Aren't we talking about ripping CD's? Where do analog or level errors come
into it?

TonyP.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
news:413a84ed$0$5604$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:CPKdncBrKa0ia6TcRVn-gg@comcast.com...

>> Got to be careful with this because alignment within one sample of
>> nominally identical files can still lead to instantaneous
>> differences on the order of FS. If the files come from the analog
>> domain by separate paths, there is almost zero chance of perfect
>> alignment.
>
> Aren't we talking about ripping CD's?

True, but we were also talking about using subtraction of two data files to
find errors.

> Where do analog or level errors come into it?

In the case of extracting audio data from CDs, when you record the analog
output of the CDROM. Not good practice, but its done. In the case of some
copy-protected discs, recording the analog output of a disc player may be
the only available option.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Arny,

> If the files come from the analog domain by separate paths <

Sure, but I was talking only about comparing a digital copy to prove there
was no degradation.

If I may digress a bit, this is a very common theme - someone asks whether
xyz will sound good because they're afraid to trust their own ears. Another
thing I hear often is along the lines of, "I bought an external word clock
[freely substitute some other gear] but I didn't really notice a difference.
It cost a lot of money so I know it's better. Some day when I have better
speakers and more experience I know I'll appreciate the improvement."

I'm convinced that psychological factors account for more than almost
anything else with audio quality. Heck, just look at all the people who
believe cable elevators have improved the sound of their systems! :-> )

--Ethan

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

buffing or polishing compound may do the work. It works on car finish by
microscopically scraping the top layers of one area then dumping it to the
scratched crevices. Heat created by friction plays a role here. If you plan
to use a buffer to polish your CD, be careful not to generate a lot of
friction heat for it may warp the CD media. Buffing it usung your fingers
maybe be a better alternative.

"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news6uij098ktsi5q11dckbmq52hclsq4edet@4ax.com...
> On 3 Sep 2004 20:53:55 -0700, Detector195@yahoo.com (Detector195)
> wrote:
>
> >I have another problem copying CD's. My children have destroyed a
> >couple of my favorite disks, mainly by badly scratching them. Is there
> >a technique for polishing out the scratches? Granted, I don't expect
> >anything to work on tooth marks.
>
> Metal polish. Or the stuff sold for "cutting back" car paintwork.
> Toothpaste for the final polish. Or I'm sure hi-fi stores offer tiny
> jars of similar at triple price :-)

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

>
> In the case of extracting audio data from CDs, when you record the
> analog output of the CDROM. Not good practice, but its done. In the
> case of some copy-protected discs, recording the analog output of a
> disc player may be the only available option.

Um ,"ripping" implies digital extraction.

geoff

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Laurence Payne wrote:
>
> On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 13:32:57 GMT, "Bubba" <bubba654@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> Metal polish. Or the stuff sold for "cutting back" car paintwork.
> >> Toothpaste for the final polish. Or I'm sure hi-fi stores offer tiny
> >> jars of similar at triple price :-)
> >
> >Please provide some brand names to make it easier
> >to buy them. Thanks.
> >
>
> In the UK: Brasso. T-Cut. Colgate. But the brands don't matter.
> They're all cutting pastes of differing grades.

Those are all pretty abrasive. Novus makes a plastic polish that
is used for finishing surfaces like acrylics and polycarbonates
such as Lexan. It comes in 3 grades from "coarse" (if you can
call it that) to fine and also a plastic cleaner. It is quite
common and many plastic houses use it as well as car repair (e.g.
matting on headlight covers). I had an old AOL disk that was
pretty scraped up. Using the coarse grade by hand it still took a
while to get the scratches down to where they were not noticable.
The finer grades then removed the "haziness" left by the coarser grade.

The coarse grade is finer than toothpaste depending on the brand.
I've seen toothpaste leave a significant haze to the surface so I
wonder if the use of toothpaste is an anecdotal solution repeated
by others who've never really tried it. No accusations here, just
that I've never seen it done where it hasn't left a significant
haze. The Novus can return it to the same smoothness and clarity
as it was originally. However, my personal experience so far
(limited) is that it can take a long time by had to get rid of
even moderate scratches with the coarse Novus by hand. Using a
coarser compnd such as one of those mentioned by the earlier
poster may work well to get the major scratches out quicker and
then use the Novus to finish it.

Remember trying to get scratches out of the plastic cover for
your old turntables? Toothpaste makes it look worse because it
was so coarse. Novus is able to make it as it was, or in the case
of deep scratches, make them far less noticable.

Do a Google on Novus plastic polish (or something like that) and
you will likely find other places on line selling it.

- Jeff

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Ethan Winer wrote:
>
> If I may digress a bit, this is a very common theme - someone asks whether
> xyz will sound good because they're afraid to trust their own ears. Another

I don't really have a problem with that type of thing at all. How
many times has someone made a major purchase only to find
sometime later that it just wasn't "right" for them and if they
had someone with a lot of experience with those kinds of products
with them when they bought it, that person may have pointed
something out that could have helped them buy something that they
would have eventually discovered to be more "right" for them?
This applies to many different types of product (cars, TVs,
cellphones, etc.). Unfortunately, the experienced person is the
salesman, and although they might have the experience, they
usually have a conflict of interest.

How many folks have had the experience of buying a pair of
speakers because they sounded so "clear" and had such good "bass"
when they first listened to them to discover later that the
clearness was a result of a harsh top end and the bass was due to
an over-emphasis of the bottom end with no control making the
system boomey sounding? It sounded good in the store! After
getting them home and listening for a while, they eventually
start screwing around with their tone controls trying to
eliminate the very aspects which seemed good at the time,
eventually to give up and realize that they really now "hate" the
sound they produce. Having someone who could have pointed those
characteristics out as a caution and provided some comparison to
illustrate it could have made a difference.

The problem of course is who is "expert enough" to help you make
a decision that you won't regret later. It would seem reasonable
to find experienced folks here in this group so why not ask?

I really "trust my own ears" because I've spent many sessions
listening to try and build a system I liked. However, I still
need the input and opinion of other to point out items to me that
may be significant to me in the long run. It's faster than me
trying to find them myself. In the end, I'll still make my own decision.


> thing I hear often is along the lines of, "I bought an external word clock
> [freely substitute some other gear] but I didn't really notice a difference.
> It cost a lot of money so I know it's better. Some day when I have better
> speakers and more experience I know I'll appreciate the improvement."


Most seasoned audiophiles do recognize that more money does not
really equal better sound. However, in order to get better sound
(even trusting your ears) you inevitably reach a point where you
must spend more money. "Extreme" e.g., a Mark Levinson 336 and an
pair of Avalon speakers will sound better than your average boom
box in a moderate sized room to almost anyone's ears--but
regardless of how overpriced you may feel the Levison equipment
is priced, there is no way they could sell it for normal boom box
prices. In this case and many similar ones, more money = better
sound. Again though, because of the number of exceptions to this
rule, the assumption mentioned above can be a bad one, even when
dealing with very expensive equipment.

There certainly is the "danger" of buying things that might not
be significant to you but costs a lot of money. The "blind faith"
aspect of this has its risks as you point out. However, from my
own personal experience, I feel that there is some truth here as
well. It is usually much harder to put together a system for a
professional musician than a teenager. Why? Because the musician
has grown over the years to be familiar with all the dynamics,
ranges, and nuances of the music they enjoy. Give them a walkman
and it prevents them from hearing what they want to hear and KNOW
is in the music. That creates frustration which increases the
more they listen to it. As you spend time and gain more
experience with your system, you grow to hear "more" of it. If it
is a poor system, you begin to hear it's flaws more easily. If it
is a "good" system (i.e., a good fit for your liking), it will
minimally be satisfying for a longer period before the desire to
improve it occurs (i.e., when you begin hearing its flaws or
character that doesn't match your liking). Ideally, as you become
familiar with it, you will like it even better. THAT is what I
think most people are aiming for in their purchases

Noone wants to upgrade a component and then later on when they
upgrade another one have to come back and further upgrade the first.


> I'm convinced that psychological factors account for more than almost
> anything else with audio quality. Heck, just look at all the people who


Yup. It makes sense to me when I consider that my "psychology" is
the part of me where the physics aspect of music in the air and
on the eardrum are converted into impact, pleasure, and escape
for my soul. The "pursuit of happiness" is what we are trying to
purchase so literally we're looking for those things which drive
our psychology. I.e., I want to buy what pushes MY buttons, even
if it IS similar to man in general :-)

This is why the differences between between people's opinions of
"better" can be meaningless in many cases. However there also
seems to be some things in audio that are fairly consistent in
that large numbers of folk like them and search for them. For
example, trying to build a system where the components are each
fairly "neutral" sounding seems to produce systems that can more
easily produce pleasant detail without harshness (probably a
phase coherency thing). More people like tight control on their
bass and not something "boomey". Psychologically, this control
and detail seem to be more "real" and involving letting more of
the true impact of the music reach our psyches. This seems to be
related to several of the common aspects that we seek in audio.


> anything else with audio quality. Heck, just look at all the people who
> believe cable elevators have improved the sound of their systems! :-> )


Believe it or not, it might make a subtle audible difference on
some rare systems. Unfortunately, it's due to poor design of the
amps and preamps rather than the cabling (usually poor tolerance
to RF type influences on inputs which can show up as tiny IM
products in the audio range). Long cables laying on concrete slab
floors in certain specific environments can contribute to ground
loop noise on signal shields throughout the rest of the system.
Unfortunately, although this type of problem is not common at
all, it is sold as though it exists everywhere (and of course the
elevators are quite expensive-all that is necessary is to reduce
the capcitive coupling to ground. Cardboard would work).

- Jeff

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Laurence Payne wrote:
>
> On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:31:20 GMT, Jeff Wiseman
> <wisemanja@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >The coarse grade is finer than toothpaste depending on the brand.
> >I've seen toothpaste leave a significant haze to the surface so I
> >wonder if the use of toothpaste is an anecdotal solution repeated
> >by others who've never really tried it. No accusations here, just
> >that I've never seen it done where it hasn't left a significant
> >haze.
>
> Nope. I did one last week. Nasty deep scratch in a CD. Brasso
> got a lot of it out. Toothpaste polished it up. The "slight haze"
> didn't seem to bother the reader, but it could, indeed, have been
> taken out with an even finer paste.


Ok, that's good to know since I'm sure it cut faster than the
coarse Novus polish. It sounds as though the "coarse" Novus is
about the same as the toothpaste but the finer ones will remove
all of the haze. I would be careful with the Brasso to keep it
away from the inner and outer edges of the CD. It's solvents may
be capabile of leeching into the inner layer area of the disk and
causing it to start delaminating.

- Jeff

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 07:40:15 +1200, "Geoff Wood"
<geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote:

>The term "ripping" in my understanding relates to the crass, fast, and
>undignified rapid bulk extraction of music from a CD that involved little
>skill on the part of the doer.

Why the attitude? It takes no skill because it requires no skill.
That isn't good or bad. It's just an efficient system.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Jeff,

> How many times has someone made a major purchase only to find sometime
later that it just wasn't "right" ... <

Excellent points. I was thinking more along the lines of simple comparisons
like the CD extraction/burning being discussed here. But I agree that
getting input from someone with more experience is always useful when making
a major purchase.

> Long cables laying on concrete slab floors in certain specific
environments can contribute to ground loop noise on signal shields
throughout the rest of the system. <

I don't see how if the cables are shielded properly.

In the more typical context where someone adds cable elevators and proclaims
their system has been transformed and the improvement is very obvious,
they're just kidding themselves.

--Ethan

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Ethan Winer wrote:
>
> Jeff,
>
> > How many times has someone made a major purchase only to find sometime
> later that it just wasn't "right" ... <
>
> Excellent points. I was thinking more along the lines of simple comparisons
> like the CD extraction/burning being discussed here. But I agree that
> getting input from someone with more experience is always useful when making
> a major purchase.


Yea, a lot of these isses come from stuff passed down from the
"exreme high end" a.k.a. very expensive systems :-) I do know
that on several very highly resolving systems that I've listened
to, things that would make a noticable difference on them had no
significant effect on my own systems. Highly resoving systems
just seem to be more sensitive to things.


> > Long cables laying on concrete slab floors in certain specific
> environments can contribute to ground loop noise on signal shields
> throughout the rest of the system. <
>
> I don't see how if the cables are shielded properly.


Actually, for speaker cables shielding would make no difference.
The problem is that the RF runs along the shield to the
components, thru their chassis, then along the IC shields, to
other chassis, then to ground, etc. where it can couple back to
the speaker cables laid along the ground. The problem comes when
you get a large "loop" in this path since the level of noise
signal on the loop elements is proportional to the area inside
the loop. Putting a ferrite core on a power cord, an IC, or even
a speaker cord (if it's a loop element) can effectively open the
loop to RF passage. If the loop has a return path through the
concrete slab via the speaker cables, moving the cables away from
the floor will also reduce the loop currents.

Obviously if there is not a high level of emi or rf noise in the
vicinity these "fixes" don't have anything to "fix". A lot of
higher resolution type audio amplifying circuits can have
problems when even tiny amounts of rf get in them


> In the more typical context where someone adds cable elevators and proclaims
> their system has been transformed and the improvement is very obvious,
> they're just kidding themselves.


Unfortunately that's usually the case. Again though, even to the
uninitiated, the differences on very highly resolving systems can
sometimes be easily discerned if it is pointed out by way of
comparison. These aren't changes that you notice in the "tonal"
aspects of the sound but rather in what is sometimes referred to
as the sound stage. Quality systems have the capability of
throwing out a soundfield that has the feel of being very "open"
and can extend beyond the physical placement of the speakers
themselves. If you were to close your eyes and try to figure out
where the speakers are, it is difficult with such a system. Also,
there can be a very acute sense of "focus" for instruments and
voices within that field which adds to to sense of it being very
alive and real. These are the things that I think captivate the
psyche because they seem to involve you more and draw you in to
the experience.

When noise related artifacts get into the soundstream, they can
have the effect of "collapsing" a sound stage and causing the
focus that it had to become more diffuse. This can happen with
very tiny amounts of noise and phase corruption. Even minor RF
contamination in the front end of your analog equipment can cause
this.

If you ever have friends that make claims as you have pointed
out, try and get them to show you the before and after. It's
probably not likely but if they have a significantly good system,
there is always a possibility that something may have changed
that is audible. If you come across such a thing, then you start
scratching your head and asking "why the ?!**! is it doing that?"
:-)

:-)

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Jeff Wiseman <wisemanja@earthlink.net> wrote:


> Laurence Payne wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 13:32:57 GMT, "Bubba" <bubba654@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> Metal polish. Or the stuff sold for "cutting back" car paintwork.
> > >> Toothpaste for the final polish. Or I'm sure hi-fi stores offer tiny
> > >> jars of similar at triple price :-)
> > >
> > >Please provide some brand names to make it easier
> > >to buy them. Thanks.
> > >
> >
> > In the UK: Brasso. T-Cut. Colgate. But the brands don't matter.
> > They're all cutting pastes of differing grades.

> Those are all pretty abrasive. Novus makes a plastic polish that
> is used for finishing surfaces like acrylics and polycarbonates
> such as Lexan. It comes in 3 grades from "coarse" (if you can
> call it that) to fine and also a plastic cleaner. It is quite
> common and many plastic houses use it as well as car repair (e.g.
> matting on headlight covers). I had an old AOL disk that was
> pretty scraped up. Using the coarse grade by hand it still took a
> while to get the scratches down to where they were not noticable.
> The finer grades then removed the "haziness" left by the coarser grade.

> The coarse grade is finer than toothpaste depending on the brand.
> I've seen toothpaste leave a significant haze to the surface so I
> wonder if the use of toothpaste is an anecdotal solution repeated
> by others who've never really tried it.

I've used it. The haze is real, but it doesn't impede playing
(or ripping) the CD. So in that sense the haze isn't
'significant'. Nowadays, especially if I intend to sell the disc
to a used-CD shop I generally finish the disc with
a finer grade of polish, until it's 'like new'.


> as it was originally. However, my personal experience so far
> (limited) is that it can take a long time by had to get rid of
> even moderate scratches with the coarse Novus by hand. Using a
> coarser compnd such as one of those mentioned by the earlier
> poster may work well to get the major scratches out quicker and
> then use the Novus to finish it.

For bad scratches I start with an auto rubbing compound,, then
proceed through polishing and finishing compounds, all using
a soft buffer wheel on a benchtop buffer. Takes a few minutes
per disc.

I've also noticed that local used CD shops are now featuring
disc-polishing devices; they'll charge a small fee to clean your
disc for you.



--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.