[Pezerinno]

Hi, I was just wondering if a copied CD sounds worse than a original CD? I tend to backup all my cd's by coping them however if they loose quality perhaps there is a better way for me to do this?

Thanks.

[FeisalK]

it doesn't have to (sound worse) check this out

burning on black CDRs

[CJROSS]

Nick interesting reading for you to peruse, I notice no difference with CDR to originals, and that is not just normal redbook 16/44.1 but also 20/44.1 copied WAVs burned onto CDR. The thread belows get quite interesting at about pages 7-9, I even posted off a CDR for someone to blind test and its worth reading those posts.

Won't I buy a new cd ever?

I have though noticed on some fast speed burns, ie 4X+ that I create quite a few coasters, that is CDRs that jump etc etc, I would say then that slower burn speeds create less problems ie error correction detection on some optical laser assemblies. I always burn at 1X or 2X, at these speeds its impossible to tell the difference to the original. Above that and I have some older CDPs that struggle with the “quality” of the CD. Ie skipping etc, when the error correction is too much for the CDP to handle.

Anyone (IMHO) saying different should try some blind a/b tests with the original CD (superior) and copy (inferior) and be able to identify each, I could not at all when I tried. And I don’t know of any properly conducted tests in the blind domain that have tried it TBH.

[mjn]

Originally Posted by FeisalK

it doesn't have to (sound worse) check this out

burning on black CDRs

As soon as he says this......."we can now consistently make a copied CD sound spectacularly better than the original." You know he's talking out of his arse!!

[CJROSS]

Originally Posted by mjn

As soon as he says this......."we can now consistently make a copied CD sound spectacularly better than the original." You know he's talking out of his arse!!

Could not have put that better myself mjn.

[Pezerinno]

Thanks for the replies - will get reading! I tend to burn at 2x when copying my cd's and 40x for anything else (data etc).

By the way CJ my Dad is using the Tag dac at the moment while I sort out my system - he loves it so might have some trouble getting it back! He isn't an audiophile by any means either.

[mjn]

Using an external DAC will give better improvements compared to using different blank CD's IMHO.

[sandstheman]

There will always be a small amount of difference between an original and a copy, but it's never enough to be noticeable on any scale, with the exception of burning coasters of course - but generally speaking a copied cd should be just as good as the original, it's only when you start making copies of copies that at some point down the line the degradation becomes noticeable

[CrispyXUK]

Exact Audio Copy

[CJROSS]

Originally Posted by CrispyXUK

Exact Audio Copy

Why ? Please explain why this software makes better copies than others ?

An un-compressed WAV file burnt to CDR and thus is an Exact Copy of the original. Or am I missing something here.

Nick tell your dad he has fine taste, whats the rest of the system he is using it in, please say a nice stereo amplifier with decent speakers.

[karkus30]

Originally Posted by CJROSS

Nick interesting reading for you to peruse, I notice no difference with CDR to originals, and that is not just normal redbook 16/44.1 but also 20/44.1 copied WAVs burned onto CDR. The thread belows get quite interesting at about pages 7-9, I even posted off a CDR for someone to blind test and its worth reading those posts.

Aye that 'twer I and the results were as conclusive as possible using a high quality HiFi system with very revealing speakers. Could'nt tell the difference and ended up buying two Cds by one of the artists on the compilation.

[Pezerinno]

Originally Posted by CJROSS

Nick tell your dad he has fine taste, whats the rest of the system he is using it in, please say a nice stereo amplifier with decent speakers.

Couldn't tell you exactly but I know he has a yamaha tape deck, arcam amp/cd player/DAB and rega lp player/speakers. Not sure on the model numbers though. Not a comet own or anything

[FeisalK]

Originally Posted by mjn

As soon as he says this......."we can now consistently make a copied CD sound spectacularly better than the original." You know he's talking out of his arse!!

ok he went overboard there :P

doesn't mean you can't try it out yourself, and possibly benefit from the article i.e make at least a few back-up copies which are as good as the original

[KoThreads]

I read the article, downloaded EAC and tried it and yes the copies I've made are better than what I was getting, but for playing in the car etc I'm not that bothered as they get slung around.

And although I too think his talking crap about the copy being better than the original. I think what his trying to say is that in theory if EAC copied a disc and made a better job of it with multiple reads correcting the errors that a CD player could never do while playng a disc, then that image burnt to a CD could be read by a CD player with less errors than the original, so in theory because the CD player has to work less hard it should sound better. But can any copy ever be better than what it was copied from. I think it's all speculation.

The short answer is NO quality loss at all as long as you do a DIRECT copy from one CD to A CD-R you will not be able to notice any difference.

[Eddy Boy]

Hang on you are using a laser here which is dependant on the reflectivity of the disc, marks, scratches. You are going to always get some loss just reading the disc, and the units error correction will have an effect on that.

If you have ever tried to copy a disc multiple times one after other you can hear a difference between the copies and thats using the same make of disc and burning at a low speed.

[Kenny Glasgow]

Providing you are using decent blanks (ie = 99% of what is generally available) any differencies will be negligible if copied bit for bit.

In fact I doubt wether most people would hear the difference if the bit rate was lower

There is an argument from some quarters that recording at a higher rate or upsampling can be beneficial.

[dynamic turtle]

And what about the quality of the clocks in the CD recorder? I doubt very, very much that a £300 CDR would incorporate a high-quality jitter-reducing oscillators of the type found in £1000+ CDP's.

I'm guessing budget CDR's probably use mulitple feeds from the same (cheap) master clock. If a CDR has average read error of, say, 800 picoseconds, and av. write error of 800 picosends, the compound effect would probably become quite noticeable. And we haven't even taken into account the quality/consitency of the laser and media yet!

I doubt there is "no degridation" in quality when burning a CD using budget recorders.

DT

[Kenny Glasgow]

Turtle

I still honestly doubt if you will notice unless things are really bad. Over the years I have only been "let down" by a copy once. Saying that I don't copy from the net or buy pirates, I only make my own.

I use a Traxdata CD-Recorder I got a long time ago from Richer once in a while but mostly use my Dell PC or Toshiba laptop at 54x dub. Blanks range from Maxell, TDK, Memorex but mostly Datasafe at 5p a go from blankdiscshop.co.uk.

I'm not saying that there will be no degradation just that most people wouldn't notice.

Replay is on my full TAG McLaren system

[Eddy Boy]

True i admit unless you then go and compare your orginal and copy most may not notice or just not care.

I personally could hear a difference between master and copy and between copies on a car stereo (usually in the symbols).

Another thing you can question are players that offer bit extension to 24bit or upsampling to 192Khz. You are only "inventing" information form the original. How do you know what it has done is correct?