Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CDRW for audiophile quality burning ?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 12:17:12 PM

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

Hey,

My Yamaha 8424 CDRW went up in smoke the other day, along with my
P4CPU (ouch) so now I'm looking for a CDRW to replace it.

Unfortunately Yamaha is out of the CDRW business, so I'm starting from
scratch.

The Yamaha drive was superior in quality as compared to the Philips
and Teac drives I have, as well as other generic brands I'd tried &
AB tested. It seems that even when burning at slowest speeds (x1), the
optical accuracy and/or some other aspect of CDRW are critical for
producing audiophile quality. Specifically, the Yamaha was the only
drive I'd used (including DVDRWs) that could translate really great
stereo imaging and could render stereo reverberant fields as good as
on the original wave files or CD.

The kind of transparency and ability to render stereo image is not
something I've ever been able to correlate with manuf. specs (at least
those provided) so test listening is usually in order. My old Sony
PCM was capable of that kind of performance in conjunction with a
really good video format and my old Sony CD player that I paid about
$350 for back in the early 80's was too. I've heard that Marantz CD
players have that kind of quality and there are no doubt lots of folks
who make less common audiphile gear that would qualify. But a CDRW?
I even had a Teac stand alone CD burner about 6 years ago and it
simply couldn't match the audio quality of the Yamaha 8424 for burning
CDs and frankly I'd rather stay away from stand alone burners for a
host of other reasons.

Anyone out there with a critical ear who's noticed knows of a
suitable CDRW for audiophile quality burning? I'd appreciate your
input. :-)


Skler
Austin-T
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 3:46:02 PM

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

skler <antcopter@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>My Yamaha 8424 CDRW went up in smoke the other day, along with my
>P4CPU (ouch) so now I'm looking for a CDRW to replace it.
>
>Unfortunately Yamaha is out of the CDRW business, so I'm starting from
>scratch.

Why CDRW? What is wrong with standard CDR?

>The Yamaha drive was superior in quality as compared to the Philips
>and Teac drives I have, as well as other generic brands I'd tried &
>AB tested. It seems that even when burning at slowest speeds (x1), the
>optical accuracy and/or some other aspect of CDRW are critical for
>producing audiophile quality. Specifically, the Yamaha was the only
>drive I'd used (including DVDRWs) that could translate really great
>stereo imaging and could render stereo reverberant fields as good as
>on the original wave files or CD.

If you are noticing this sort of difference between burners, I would start
looking at your playback system. The better your playback system is able
to deal with errors and phase shift on the clock, the less you will have to
worry about the quality of the original disc.

>The kind of transparency and ability to render stereo image is not
>something I've ever been able to correlate with manuf. specs (at least
>those provided) so test listening is usually in order. My old Sony
>PCM was capable of that kind of performance in conjunction with a
>really good video format and my old Sony CD player that I paid about
>$350 for back in the early 80's was too. I've heard that Marantz CD
>players have that kind of quality and there are no doubt lots of folks
>who make less common audiphile gear that would qualify. But a CDRW?
>I even had a Teac stand alone CD burner about 6 years ago and it
>simply couldn't match the audio quality of the Yamaha 8424 for burning
>CDs and frankly I'd rather stay away from stand alone burners for a
>host of other reasons.

I suggest that you look at the Plextor drives, if only because they allow you
to actually measure the error rates. This gives you the ability to select a
burn rate and blank brand which will give you the lowest possible errors, and
this will translate more into better sound quality than anything else.

>Anyone out there with a critical ear who's noticed knows of a
>suitable CDRW for audiophile quality burning? I'd appreciate your
>input. :-)

Since the CDRW is going to have a higher error rate than a stock CD-R,
why are you using it over CD-R if you care about sound quality?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 4:58:04 PM

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:


>
> Since the CDRW is going to have a higher error rate than a stock CD-R,
> why are you using it over CD-R if you care about sound quality?
> --scott

Now THAT is the question:) 

CDRWs should be used for computer data, not for serious audio. Besides,
at 30-50 cents a pop, CDRs are way cheaper than blank cassettes.

CD
Related resources
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 5:51:12 PM

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

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cjelbq$s3v$1@panix2.panix.com
> skler <antcopter@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> My Yamaha 8424 CDRW went up in smoke the other day, along with my
>> P4CPU (ouch) so now I'm looking for a CDRW to replace it.
>>
>> Unfortunately Yamaha is out of the CDRW business, so I'm starting
>> from scratch.
>
> Why CDRW? What is wrong with standard CDR?

They dropped those, too.

http://www.yamaha.co.jp/english/product/computer/

If you want a computer drive that burns CDs and has the Yamaha logo on it,
you either get some NOS, or move on to a DVD burner.
Anonymous
September 30, 2004 12:05:58 AM

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

In article <cjelbq$s3v$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>
(snip)

>Since the CDRW is going to have a higher error rate than a stock CD-R,
>why are you using it over CD-R if you care about sound quality?

In one case, I've found the opposite to be true. I tried TDK CDRWs at 1X
in a new HHB CDR830, and a used Sony CDRW33, error checking them on a
Clover Systems CDX error rate analyzer. Both tests showed the lowest,
cleanest error rates that I have ever seen from any CDR burn, at any
speed, cyanine or pthalocyanine. Both recorders made pretty poor CDRs (1X,
various name brand cyanine or Mitsui gold pthalocyanine) from an error
rate standpoint, but most all CD players tended to play the CDRs anyway
without obvious choking.

This was surprising enough that I really have to make some more tests to
verify this.
Anonymous
September 30, 2004 8:34:32 AM

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

> My Yamaha 8424 CDRW went up in smoke the other day, along with my
> P4CPU (ouch) so now I'm looking for a CDRW to replace it.

[huge snip]

These days it's hard to find a cheap CD burner and cheap media that can't
burn a flawless CD, thanks also to jitter-defeating buffer systems in DVD
players. Things have come a long way since the 8x CDRW! What kept you from
upgrading long ago? The idea of the "audiophile CDRW" is long dead. Get a
$20 LG and you're laughing (great tech support).
Anonymous
September 30, 2004 3:52:26 PM

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

G. Louie wrote:

> In article <cjelbq$s3v$1@panix2.panix.com>,
> Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>
>>Since the CDRW is going to have a higher error rate than a stock CD-R,
>>why are you using it over CD-R if you care about sound quality?
>
>
> In one case, I've found the opposite to be true. I tried TDK CDRWs at 1X
> in a new HHB CDR830, and a used Sony CDRW33, error checking them on a
> Clover Systems CDX error rate analyzer. Both tests showed the lowest,
> cleanest error rates that I have ever seen from any CDR burn, at any
> speed, cyanine or pthalocyanine. Both recorders made pretty poor CDRs (1X,
> various name brand cyanine or Mitsui gold pthalocyanine) from an error
> rate standpoint, but most all CD players tended to play the CDRs anyway
> without obvious choking.
>
> This was surprising enough that I really have to make some more tests to
> verify this.
So your experince says that CDRWs make the most error free copies but
CDRs still tend to be the most readable or playable? Odd. What a
technically confusing world we live in.

CD
Anonymous
September 30, 2004 5:26:59 PM

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

"G. Louie" <louie@u.washington.edu> wrote in message news:cjf4j6$dib$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
> In article <cjelbq$s3v$1@panix2.panix.com>,
> Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> (snip)
>
> >Since the CDRW is going to have a higher error rate than a stock CD-R,
> >why are you using it over CD-R if you care about sound quality?
>
> In one case, I've found the opposite to be true. I tried TDK CDRWs at 1X
> in a new HHB CDR830, and a used Sony CDRW33, error checking them on a
> Clover Systems CDX error rate analyzer. Both tests showed the lowest,
> cleanest error rates that I have ever seen from any CDR burn, at any
> speed, cyanine or pthalocyanine. Both recorders made pretty poor CDRs (1X,
> various name brand cyanine or Mitsui gold pthalocyanine) from an error
> rate standpoint, but most all CD players tended to play the CDRs anyway
> without obvious choking.
>
> This was surprising enough that I really have to make some more tests to
> verify this.

I'm a bit surprised that you could still find a burner capable of 1X these days.

DM
Anonymous
September 30, 2004 11:29:42 PM

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

In article <DQT6d.10211$me5.9840@trnddc06> mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com writes:

> I'm a bit surprised that you could still find a burner capable of 1X these
> days.

All stand-alone CD recorders run at 1X speed. They aren't all extinct
yet, are they?

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
October 1, 2004 12:35:35 AM

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

In article <DQT6d.10211$me5.9840@trnddc06>,
David Morgan \(MAMS\) <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>
>"G. Louie" <louie@u.washington.edu> wrote in message news:cjf4j6$dib$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>> In article <cjelbq$s3v$1@panix2.panix.com>,
>> Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> (snip)
>>
>> >Since the CDRW is going to have a higher error rate than a stock CD-R,
>> >why are you using it over CD-R if you care about sound quality?
>>
>> In one case, I've found the opposite to be true. I tried TDK CDRWs at 1X
>> in a new HHB CDR830, and a used Sony CDRW33, error checking them on a
>> Clover Systems CDX error rate analyzer. Both tests showed the lowest,
>> cleanest error rates that I have ever seen from any CDR burn, at any
>> speed, cyanine or pthalocyanine. Both recorders made pretty poor CDRs (1X,
>> various name brand cyanine or Mitsui gold pthalocyanine) from an error
>> rate standpoint, but most all CD players tended to play the CDRs anyway
>> without obvious choking.
>>
>> This was surprising enough that I really have to make some more tests to
>> verify this.
>
>I'm a bit surprised that you could still find a burner capable of 1X these days.
>
>DM

These 2 units are standalone "pro" CDR-CDRW realtime audio recorders. But
it begs the question- do CDRWs burned at higher speeds also have good low
error rates? I should do some experiments! One problem is that we are more
interested in long term archival stability, and I think gold CDR will beat
CDRW.

I would not be surprised at all to find that low error rates translate
into subjectively better sounding audio, but I'm not going there yet.

I am saying that CD players seem to have a wide variation in tolerance for
discs with certain error rates, with wide variations in what they spit out
as audio when they encounter certain errors. By and large, the majority of
CDR burns we have tested, with a variety of drives and media, have fairly
poor (high) error rates, but most CD players still spit out audio without
obvious crackles and static. But it may be the result of error
concealment. Digital extraction (ripping) of audio CDRs is probably
another matter. I get quite a bit of variation there, too.

We try to find consistant sweet spots of low error rates with our drives,
drive speed, and media, for long-term university audio archiving. But we
don't test every burn.
Anonymous
October 1, 2004 7:19:34 PM

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

"G. Louie" wrote:

>
> I would not be surprised at all to find that low error rates translate
> into subjectively better sounding audio, but I'm not going there yet.
>

Provided your recorder is giving no uncorrectable errors, the sound of
the disc is totally dependent on your player. In fact, if your player
sounds different with data identical discs then your player isn't
particularly good. Nowadays a $20 CD drive can extract perfect audio so
it seems strange to me that, so called audiophile, players sound
different with different discs.

Buy a Benchmark DAC-1 digital to analogue convertor and then see if the
discs sound different.

Cheers.

James.
Anonymous
October 2, 2004 7:23:17 PM

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

In article <415D6776.4530CBEA@soc.soton.ac.uk>,
James Perrett <James.R.Perrett@soc.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>"G. Louie" wrote:
>
>>
>> I would not be surprised at all to find that low error rates translate
>> into subjectively better sounding audio, but I'm not going there yet.
>>
>
>Provided your recorder is giving no uncorrectable errors, the sound of
>the disc is totally dependent on your player. In fact, if your player
>sounds different with data identical discs then your player isn't
>particularly good. Nowadays a $20 CD drive can extract perfect audio so
>it seems strange to me that, so called audiophile, players sound
>different with different discs.
>
>Buy a Benchmark DAC-1 digital to analogue convertor and then see if the
>discs sound different.
>
>Cheers.


My limited testing seems to show that most CDRs typically have quite a few
uncorrectable (E32) errors. This leads me to suspect much audio
extraction, too, but I do not have any info on different audio CD
extraction/ripping hardware/software techniques in use. I do know that my
newest computer gear extracts audio without audible glitches that would
show up on my older gear, but I can't say if the extractions are always
perfect bit for bit copies every time.

I do think that different CD players produce vastly different sounds when
playing discs with uncorrectable errors.
Anonymous
October 2, 2004 7:23:18 PM

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

G. Louie <louie@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>My limited testing seems to show that most CDRs typically have quite a few
>uncorrectable (E32) errors. This leads me to suspect much audio
>extraction, too, but I do not have any info on different audio CD
>extraction/ripping hardware/software techniques in use. I do know that my
>newest computer gear extracts audio without audible glitches that would
>show up on my older gear, but I can't say if the extractions are always
>perfect bit for bit copies every time.

This is the whole point of the CD format.. it has a very high error rate,
but it has all sorts of error correction and concealment to deal with that
error rate. You will find the interpolation kicks in a lot when listening
to typical pressings.

I don't know about extraction. If you can do multiple reads over and over,
transient errors can be corrected. You can't do that with a CD player but
you could easily do that when ripping since the ripping does not need to be
done in realtime.

>I do think that different CD players produce vastly different sounds when
>playing discs with uncorrectable errors.

This is true. And there are always uncorrectable errors.
-scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
October 4, 2004 6:26:18 PM

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

"G. Louie" wrote:

>
> My limited testing seems to show that most CDRs typically have quite a few
> uncorrectable (E32) errors.

This indicates major problems somewhere. I can't remember the last time
I saw an E32 on a freshly burned CD-R - in fact I don't think I've ever
seen one. I've had very occasional C2 (E12 or E22) but even these are
restricted to cheap blanks that have been sitting on the shelf too long.

If you use Exact Audio Copy to extract your audio then you can be fairly
sure that the extraction is accurate. Many other popular extraction
programs aren't accurate.

Cheers.

James.
Anonymous
October 4, 2004 7:44:00 PM

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

"G. Louie" <louie@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:cjmh55$3a9$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu

> My limited testing seems to show that most CDRs typically have quite
> a few uncorrectable (E32) errors. This leads me to suspect much audio
> extraction, too, but I do not have any info on different audio CD
> extraction/ripping hardware/software techniques in use.

The logical way to check out the quality of final results, is to burn an
audio CD, then rip it, and see if you get back the same bits you put on the
disc.

Good software for this check includes the EAC and CDEX extractors, Both are
freeware, and either can be searched for instantly using google. Not only
does this software do high-quality extraction, but it includes bit
comparison software that automatically synchronizes and resynchronizes the
data being compared. This is helpful because sometimes the
burning/extraction software adds a few binary zeroes to the front or back
end of a track. If there are any differences, it would be nice to know if
the data can be resynchronized after the error, so that additional errors
can be found if they exist.

Typically, when I burn a CD with EZCD or Nero, and then test the CD using
CDEX or EAC, I get perfect comparisons.
Anonymous
October 5, 2004 12:22:00 AM

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

In article <cjmihf$iat$1@panix2.panix.com>,
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> G. Louie <louie@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> >My limited testing seems to show that most CDRs typically have quite a few
> >uncorrectable (E32) errors. This leads me to suspect much audio
> >extraction, too, but I do not have any info on different audio CD
> >extraction/ripping hardware/software techniques in use. I do know that my
> >newest computer gear extracts audio without audible glitches that would
> >show up on my older gear, but I can't say if the extractions are always
> >perfect bit for bit copies every time.
>
> This is the whole point of the CD format.. it has a very high error rate,
> but it has all sorts of error correction and concealment to deal with that
> error rate. You will find the interpolation kicks in a lot when listening
> to typical pressings.
>
> I don't know about extraction. If you can do multiple reads over and over,
> transient errors can be corrected. You can't do that with a CD player but
> you could easily do that when ripping since the ripping does not need to be
> done in realtime.
>
> >I do think that different CD players produce vastly different sounds when
> >playing discs with uncorrectable errors.
>
> This is true. And there are always uncorrectable errors.
> -scott

I have read somewhere (but do not know if it is bullshit) that most
every normal computer CD burner put their data on the CD in "bursts" as
opposed to real gear that will put the data in a continuous flow.
The result is arguably audible ;)  Does this make sense ? A CD-RW in a
good (read professional) machine might then have less errors than a
consumer styled burner doing a CD-R ?

--
Joakim Wendel
Remove obvious mail JUNK block for mail reply.

My homepage : http://violinist.nu
Anonymous
October 5, 2004 12:29:15 AM

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

In article <41614F7A.5AB5C978@soc.soton.ac.uk>,
James Perrett <James.R.Perrett@soc.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>"G. Louie" wrote:
>>
>> My limited testing seems to show that most CDRs typically have quite a few
>> uncorrectable (E32) errors.
>
>This indicates major problems somewhere. I can't remember the last time
>I saw an E32 on a freshly burned CD-R - in fact I don't think I've ever
>seen one. I've had very occasional C2 (E12 or E22) but even these are
>restricted to cheap blanks that have been sitting on the shelf too long.
>
>If you use Exact Audio Copy to extract your audio then you can be fairly
>sure that the extraction is accurate. Many other popular extraction
>programs aren't accurate.
------

All very interesting. I can get E32 errors all the time, on our realtime
audio CDR decks (HHB and Sony), our computer burners from Panasonic,
Plextor, Yamaha, Lite-On, Pioneer; at all speeds from 1X to 52X, on Macs
(Toast) and PCs (CD Architect). Various cyanine CDRs (Maxell, Imation TDK)
and Mitsui Gold. The number of errors varies a lot. We use a Clover CDX
analyzer, and it's hard to know if it's calibrated well or not. It comes
with a calibration CD with little dots on it, but many parameters are
unclear.

What burner, speed, and error rate analyzer are you using? I am mostly Mac
based, so for EAC I'd have to move to the Windows machine for extractions
- which I would if I felt it was defintely more accurate and reliable.
Anonymous
October 5, 2004 12:17:47 PM

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

On or about Mon, 04 Oct 2004 20:22:00 +0200, Joakim Wendel allegedly
wrote:

> I have read somewhere (but do not know if it is bullshit) that most
> every normal computer CD burner put their data on the CD in "bursts" as
> opposed to real gear that will put the data in a continuous flow.
> The result is arguably audible ;)  Does this make sense ?

The computer transfers data to the drive in bursts. The drive has a
buffer memory where it stores and prepares this before burning it to the
disc. Assuming you're burning disc at once, this is done in a continual
data stream fashion.

If you burn track-at-once, then each tracks data is sent as a sort of
burst. perhaps that's what your source is confusing.


Noel Bachelor noelbachelorAT(From:_domain)
Language Recordings Inc (Darwin Australia)
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 10:07:46 PM

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

"G. Louie" wrote:
>
> In article <41614F7A.5AB5C978@soc.soton.ac.uk>,
> James Perrett <James.R.Perrett@soc.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> >"G. Louie" wrote:
> >>
> >> My limited testing seems to show that most CDRs typically have quite a few
> >> uncorrectable (E32) errors.
> >
> >This indicates major problems somewhere. I can't remember the last time
> >I saw an E32 on a freshly burned CD-R - in fact I don't think I've ever
> >seen one. I've had very occasional C2 (E12 or E22) but even these are
> >restricted to cheap blanks that have been sitting on the shelf too long.
> >
> >If you use Exact Audio Copy to extract your audio then you can be fairly
> >sure that the extraction is accurate. Many other popular extraction
> >programs aren't accurate.
> ------
>
> All very interesting. I can get E32 errors all the time, on our realtime
> audio CDR decks (HHB and Sony), our computer burners from Panasonic,
> Plextor, Yamaha, Lite-On, Pioneer; at all speeds from 1X to 52X, on Macs
> (Toast) and PCs (CD Architect). Various cyanine CDRs (Maxell, Imation TDK)
> and Mitsui Gold. The number of errors varies a lot. We use a Clover CDX
> analyzer, and it's hard to know if it's calibrated well or not. It comes
> with a calibration CD with little dots on it, but many parameters are
> unclear.
>
> What burner, speed, and error rate analyzer are you using? I am mostly Mac
> based, so for EAC I'd have to move to the Windows machine for extractions
> - which I would if I felt it was defintely more accurate and reliable.

If the discs I burned were giving any E32 errors then they would be
rejected by the pressing plants that I send them to - I've not had any
E32 errors reported on any of the discs I've sent out for replication. I
use a Plextor Premium with Plextools to check error rates at the moment
but there are a variety of low cost tools that will report errors as
severe as an E32 (also known as a CU or uncorrectable error). Plextools
will give you C1 (E11 and E21) and C2 (E12 and E22) errors as well. A
well burned disc will give a C1 error rate of less than 1 and no C2
errors, let alone CU(E32) errors.

You say you have a Plextor drive. Try using Plextools' error checking
features - the basic CD Test option will work with most of their drives
if you don't have a Plextor Premium and will tell you about any C2 or
worse errors that you have. If you don't have access to Plextools then
Nero's CDSpeed program will give the same information and works with a
wider variety of drives. CDSpeed is also available separately from the
Ahead web site.

Cheers.

James.
!