The difference

[Rolf]

Hi all.

Last night I had an A-HA experience. I made a copy of a CD I am very pleased, and like to listen to.

I asked my wife to put on the copy and the original so I could not see it.

I wanted to hear if there was any difference.

There was, and I have to admit I thought the copy was the original.

I hate to admit this, but this is the truth.

Anybody else have this experience?

[whizzer]

I too have had this experience--and more than once, too. The only thing I can figure is physical wear--not from playing, but from taking the disk out of its container, handling it, putting it in the player, removing it, replacing it in its container, etc. that might (maybe possibly perhaps) be the culprit. Since the digital information is (supposedly) the same, then the difference--if there is one--must lie in the physical disk itself.

[hjames]

Basic question is what software are you using to clone your original disc - some "disc copy" utilities don't really do it very well.

[rs237]

it can be that the CD-Player easy reading problems with older CDs has. Thus Samples are omitted, interpolated or jumped over. If you copy the CD in the PC, the PC can read these difficult ranges several times to it is correct. The CD-Player can read the copy now without problems and needs no more Samples to interpolate.
Unfortunately my English is very bad, I hopes one understands me.

regards
juergen

[Titanium Dome]

It's clear to me Juergen, and it makes sense under certain conditions.

Rolf, was the disc you copied in very good shape or was it old and worn?

[Thom]

I can't explain why the copy would be better unless the answers already given are correct. I do know you can drop bits copying and the machine won't know it except for the material not being there. (if they are the right bits) When vista beta was available I couldn't get it to load until I made a low speed copy. As far as the computer was concerned it was a good dvd but there was stuff missing that vista needed. I don't know if worse could sound better. With analog it's possible. With digital I doubt it, so the answer must have already been given.

[Rolf]

Rolf, was the disc you copied in very good shape or was it old and worn?

It was a new disc, with new technology. I used for the first time the program Exact Audio Copy after being recommended this.

I have done this before, using Nero, and have never been "fooled" before, but this program (EAC) seems to do things another way.

[Rolf]

I can't explain why the copy would be better

It was not better or worse, but the same.

[hjames]

It was not better or worse, but the same.

It should be the same - if it was an exact digital copy.
It should sound the same as well e.g, there should be no generational loss as you get with tape recording/Analog copy. That is why RIAA is so upset - because a copy can be undetectable.

Are you saying it did NOT sound the same??

There was, and I have to admit I thought the copy was the original.

[timc]

Hi.

I've had the same experience as Rolf on ocations. To me it makes sense that the copy is better sometimes.

Original disks are pressed. Wich results in the data not been 100% alligned with the centre hole (sometimes). When you copy it, the data is allligned, even if the data surface is a bit off centre.

If your player dont have powerfull error correction circuits then this can result in a difference in sound.

Best regards Tim

[ratitifb]

copy and copy and copy ... and copy ... again and ... better is sound ?

[Hoerninger]

The explanation of Juergen (rs237) seems to me very resonable.
Rolf, have you ever tried this comparison with other disks?

Another point - but may be of interest in this context as it touches the thought of Tim - which Juergen has explaint me once:
I mentioned that I always liked to listen to the ripped music on the PC (*.wav) and I often did not use the burned CD . Juergen said it depends on the clock generator which is far more better in the PC than in a normal CD player and that the data from a music CD are fetched in a different way than from a data file (*.wav). - (Hope I said it right.)
___________
Peter

[Allanvh5150]

Isnt it interesting that we can hear a difference between zero's and ones. The original CD came out of a stamping machine, made in much the same way as our old vinyl records. When we copy a CD, there is more information going back onto the copy than is on the original. Sure, it sounds different but I am not sure it sounds better. Most CD's have limitations for sure but most CD's have not been recorded in the best possible way. Two discs that are worth a listen to see what a CD can sound like are "Brothers in Arms" by Dire straights, this was the first CD recorded in DDD. Most still use analogue in the system somewhere. The digital processing shows up the limitations in the analogue gear and it can sound awful. The other disc would be "Hysteria" by Def Leppard". To me you cant say that CD's dont sound so good, it is all about how the original material goes down in the first place. There aren't too many recording studio's in the world that offer this level of service. Air studios in monseratt is one that I know of. The CD recording process is so good that any shortfall in the system will be shown up. A well engineered digital recording played on good equipment will always sound "as good if not better" than the original.

[rs237]

copy and copy and copy ... and copy ... again and ... better is sound ?

not analog vs digital, only digitale copy. Look the Picture. Is very simplified.
The first curve shows a signal of new CD.
The second curve shows the signal older CD.
The CD-Player picks the first bit out sometimes wrongly.
It recognizes that has however no time it to correct or again read.
The PC can so often read to it is correct.
3. Curve comes then of the copied CD.
Curve 3 is better than curve 2. Not better than curve 1.

[ratitifb]

as long as curve 3 is equal to 0101 vs time and curve 1 is equal to 0101 codec play the same word and probably we hear the same sound ... except some bit loss and/or correction ?