Makes You Go Hmmmm....
So I was reading my latest Stereophile and I came across one of the most interesting bits of audio voodoo I have yet encountered. The author makes three claims about listening to music from CD-R discs as opposed to the original disc.
The first is that a copy of a CD burned at a slower speed will sound better than a copy burned at a higher speed. Ok, I can buy that. When burned at a slower speed the laser has more time to really get the job done when burning a pit into the disc.
The second is that burned copies of discs sound better than the original. Huh? Duplicates sound better? I mean, I do not really expect them to sound worse because bits are bits, right? But better? Here again he makes a plausible argument. On original pressed discs the pits are actually bumps on the surface of the disc. This, supposedly, causes light to scatter when it hits them. On burned discs the pits are actually pits, or holes burned into the surface of the disc. Since burned copies have these pits light does not scatter, or at least not as much. Ok, maybe I can buy that.
The third claim the author makes is that color of the surface of the disc that is burned makes a difference in the sound. Wha? This one I have a much harder time believing, but the author claims it makes a noticeable difference. However neither he, nor the experts he consults can offer an explanation. The only thing I can think of is that the different materials that are used for the discs and then burned into have different properties, and for some reason one of them sounds better. But other than that, this one seems totally crazy to me.
I must say that I have not tried any of these options to do a comparison and test out one of these theories, but I also kind of doubt that even if there are differences my system is good enough to really notice. Though it would be interesting to try. I mean blank CDs are cheap, so why not?
The first is that a copy of a CD burned at a slower speed will sound better than a copy burned at a higher speed. Ok, I can buy that. When burned at a slower speed the laser has more time to really get the job done when burning a pit into the disc.
The second is that burned copies of discs sound better than the original. Huh? Duplicates sound better? I mean, I do not really expect them to sound worse because bits are bits, right? But better? Here again he makes a plausible argument. On original pressed discs the pits are actually bumps on the surface of the disc. This, supposedly, causes light to scatter when it hits them. On burned discs the pits are actually pits, or holes burned into the surface of the disc. Since burned copies have these pits light does not scatter, or at least not as much. Ok, maybe I can buy that.
The third claim the author makes is that color of the surface of the disc that is burned makes a difference in the sound. Wha? This one I have a much harder time believing, but the author claims it makes a noticeable difference. However neither he, nor the experts he consults can offer an explanation. The only thing I can think of is that the different materials that are used for the discs and then burned into have different properties, and for some reason one of them sounds better. But other than that, this one seems totally crazy to me.
I must say that I have not tried any of these options to do a comparison and test out one of these theories, but I also kind of doubt that even if there are differences my system is good enough to really notice. Though it would be interesting to try. I mean blank CDs are cheap, so why not?
posted by Erik at 9:34 PM
1 Comments:
Yeah, I think with Redbook there is definitly some error correction going on that can affect the sound. I have read reviews of CD players where the reviewer uses a special disc with gaps in it to test the players error correction. There can be big gaps and the player will keep playing without a hitch, and I can only assume that it fills in the gaps with its best guess. I would guess the same could happen with out of place bits on a copy. Of course the best guess is just that, a guess and having a better, more bit correct copy is the way to go.
Post a Comment
<< Home