CD-R media questions

B

Brian Ferrell

New member
Does it really matter if you use 'master' quality CD-R media (e.g., $5.00 per disc) to master audio CDs for factory duplication?

I've seen data, audio and multimedia CD-Rs for sale. Some ads don't even specify what kind of CD-Rs they are selling. Do I have to watch for anything special regarding these descriptions when I'm buying music recording media or should I just stick with ones that specifically say they are for 'music' and/or 'audio'? Any suggestions on what type to get?

Sony CD-R74s claim to 'conform to Orange Book Part II standards'. I thought 'Red Book' was the industry master standard. Does anyone know the difference? Are these Sony CD-Rs worth going out of my way for?
 
CDR MEDIA - TDK has never let me down

Brian.

Yes, there is a very small, but discreet difference between data and audio only disks.

This question also entered my mind.

I recently conducted a test by mastering a compilation on my computer. I first Pressed it on Sony CDR74 standard disks, then burned the same compilation in the same method onto TDK CDR-74 audio only disks. The TDK audio only had more depth in it’s dynamics. This is something that the average person on the street wouldn’t pick up, but audiophiles like us would.

Strange as it is but even BASF/EMTEC disks gave the same performance as the TDK audio only ones. The BASF disks I tried were the ordinary audio/data disks. The High and Low end dynamics were excellent. Better then Sony standard disks.

I must admit the difference didn’t hit me straight away, but over a period of time of taking in the music, the TDK’s and BASF’s definitely had a sharper sound.

I feel a lot of the sound quality depends on whatever materials the dye is made of and the disk sub-straight colour. I go for gold as it’s recommended over silver. Silver disks are also more vulnerable to corrosion then gold.

I don’t know how much truth is in it, but I’ve read on the internet a few times that Maxell CDRs easily scratch. Particularly in car players. Cost is a secondary concern. A good recording can never ever be replaced if made on dodgy media.

My final word on this issue is that you can’t go wrong with TDK. I’ve used their media for 25 years and it’s never let me down.

Mark.
 
And I use Maxell with no problems what so ever!

This whole brand name thing is a crock of shite!

In the old days, certain CD recorders would write to certain types of media better then others. Gold, Green, Blue, whatever.....

All the new burners have detection devices that seek the type of media and calibrate the lazer burn to optimize for the media.

I played around with some simple a/b tests with some people with some great ears. Without fail, the media type made no difference, and the burn speeds made no difference.

Orange book and Red bood standards have to do with how the data is burned to the disk, rather then any sound quality differences. With stand alone burners, you may not always get Red book standards, but most duplication houses for CD's will not reject disks authored to Orange book standards. They would be far more concerned with block error rates. BER's are more or less something of the past. If you buner in newer then 2 or 3 years old, it will burn perfectly fine disks.

The media you use will make no difference either, unless you are using a very cheap burner that cannot optimize itself for the different die's on CDR media.

TDK, Kodak, Maxell, Good Guys house brand, whatever! It is all the same for the modern CDR burner, and that is a fact! Don't let stupid, unfounded "audiophile" facts fool you with this. Greater minds then on this BBS have proven with double blind tests that the differences are not AUDIBLE differences to even very good ears.

Now, certain media seems to have better construction to it, thus, will last longer. The Kodak Gold's I have had the best luck with.

Also, depending upon the quality of your CDR burner, you may not be able to burn at 1X speed with media that is not rated for it. I found this out the hard way with buying some cheap media that will not burn at 1X speed on either my Marantz CDR 630 stand alone, OR my Sony IDE burner. It will work fine for 2X burns on the Sony.

Anyway, media is more of less media in respects to sound quality in the modern CDR burner. If it will burn at 1X speed on your burner, it will sound as good as ANY other media.

Now, if you want to get into a subjective arguement about the different qualities in CDR burners, I am game! ;) Not all are created equal!

Ed
 
Re: CDR MEDIA - TDK has never let me down

radiogold said:
I recently conducted a test by mastering a compilation on my computer. I first Pressed it on Sony CDR74 standard disks, then burned the same compilation in the same method onto TDK CDR-74 audio only disks. The TDK audio only had more depth in it’s dynamics. This is something that the average person on the street wouldn’t pick up, but audiophiles like us would.
Click to expand...
OH FER CHRIS'SAKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
More depth and dynamics on a TDK disc, eh???? Didja have a green marker to rim the CD too????????????????????

Fuck! Fuck!! Fuck!!! Shit like this is pissing me off now....

Let's get this straight ---- IT'S DATA - 1010101010......... unless there's a problem with your burner 1010101010 will be 1010101010 on ANY CD-R you burn.................... there's no "different dynamics" or "more depth" --- 1010101010 = 1010101010!!!!!!!!!!!!! Period.

GED'DIT???????? GOT IT???????????????? GOOD.......... now stop spreading this green-marker media bullshit around!!!!!!!!

Thank you,

Bruce
 
Different manufacturing techniques result in product quality variation

I disagree with Ed.

Sony and TDK have a definite difference. The dynamics with TDK and BASF/EMTEC audio only disks are much better then the standard disks made by Sony and Kodak.

Forget all the hype. It's as simple as a straight forward listening test.

Compile a number of tracks on your computer. By using the same tracks and burning technique, first burn to a standard disk and then to a audio only disk. Do it the other way if you wish.

The results are there at your hands on two different types of disk. What ever you choose is totally up to you.

Although the principle production technique of a CD-R is standard. Variations in the dye-elements and the reflective metallic layer do differ from brand to brand. This can be seen with the naked eye. The crux of the matter is how well the lazer etches the signal into the dye and the reflectivity qualities of the metallic layer. Different techniques in producing a CD-R will therefore without doubt result in discreet differences in sound quality from brand to brand. There is really nothing to argue about. These are just the facts.

Mark
 
Oh boy... where do I start???

...actually, I won't...

RadioGold, if YOU hear a difference and have convinced yourself of a difference... so be it!

GO at it.... just don't start spouting misinformation and fantasy here... you WILL be called on it!

Bruce
 
I agree with radiogold, to a point.

Let's talk about this for a while. This has nothing to do with green pens, which do absolutely nothing. And this is nothing obsurd, like claiming that one hard drive sounds better than another.

Jitter jitter jitter. It has been demonstrated that jitter can be burned onto a CD. It's copied to the disc via pit/land quality/spacing. Bear with me for a moment.

From a bob katz article:

"Any leakage current (interference) between the servo mechanism controlling the speed of the spinning disc and the crystal oscillator controlling the output of the buffer may unstabilize the crystal oscillator enough to add jitter to the clock signal. This does not change the data, by the way. If the servo is working harder to deal with a disc that has irregularly spaced pits or pits that are not clean, perhaps leakage from the servo power affects the crystal oscillator. It doesn't take much interference to alter a clock by a tiny amount."

And....

"Although the FIFO is supposed to eliminate all the jitter coming in, it doesn't seem to be doing an adequate job. One theory put forth by David Smith (of Sony Music) is that the crystal oscillator at the output of the FIFO is powered by the same power supply that powers the input of the FIFO. Thus, the variations in loading at the input to the FIFO are microcosmically transmitted to the output of the FIFO through the power supply. "

Ok, I'm glad you're still reading.

I believe that pit quality and spacing can introduce jitter into the signal. Pit quality dependant on the CD burner AND the media, pit spacing dependant on the burner alone (I'd assume).

Before you ask, pit spacing and quality certainly have an effect on the digital signal. In fact, it is the whole reason behind the eight to fourteen modulation (EMF) that audio CD's are burned with. Eight to fourteen recodes each byte to fourteen bits, lengthening pits and lands. The idea is to reduce the number of 0 to 1 and 1 to 0 transitions, minimizing the effects of small pits and lands and thereby minimizing the effects of jitter on the error rate.

But ok, let's forget about the jitter topic specifically and just talk about error rates. Every CD contains errors, most of which can be detected and corrected. However, poor media can result in a higher than tolerable error rate, and because of the "relatively" simple 2 dimensional parity error correction system of an *audio* CD, some errors could go undetected. Other errors might be detected but uncorrectable...in which case the sample is either dropped or interpolated.

If errors occur in a random fasion, you get white noise which is certainly audible. I think this is what most people expect when they think of errors in the digital realm...complete dropouts...static...etc.

However, if the errors are periodic, they might effect the sound in ways that are difficult to qualify. We know that jitter can be periodic and if jitter can be burned to disc then one CD might sound better than another, seemingly identical CD, depending on the burner. However we're interested in media quality in this thread....so I offer the following...

CDR's are inked and it is the quality of this initial inking that would have the most dramatic effect on the quality of the disc. Certainly the quality of the dye will be a factor...if the entire batch of dye is of poor quality, then it should result in somewhat uniform suckiness across the entire disc...random errors. I have a bunch of Memorx CDR's sitting here that are so bad, I burn one coaster out of three regardless of the burn speed. It must have something to do with either the dye, or perhaps the discs are slightly warped or something. But I digress.

Now if the concentration of dye has an effect, or the dye quality is extremely inconsistant, then this is where things get interesting. I'm just divulging here...I don't really know what I'm talking about...

If there is a "bad section of ink" on a disc due in some way to the some part of the manufacturing process, then we can safely assume that the error rate in the bad section of the disk will be higher than the good sections. Now here's the clutch. The disc spins. Duh. But this means that these sections of bad errors will occur PERIODICALLY during playback, thereby potentially damaging the sound not with white noise, but by changing the sound in a more subjective fashion (nothing should be subjective, but some things are hard to measure).

Certainly some companies have tighter quality assurance than other companies. This is true for every industry. Therefore, CDR's from company A might sound worse than CDR's from company B. This difference may vary over time.

This is all speculation, but I'd advise people to not chalk this one up as green ink.

I suggest the reading of the following articles:

http://www.digido.com/jitteressay.html
http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/CE/kuhn/cdaudio2/95x7.htm

Slackmaster 2000
 
Slack, er, nice essay. But, you know as well as I do that this info is mostly dated!

radiogold. Until you can provide proof of this "sound difference" using a double blind testing method, it is all full of crapola!!! You are going to need to provide much stronger evidence. I DID do a double blind, and the people listening just didn't hear ANY difference whatsoever.

Again, if you want to discuss different burners ability to burn well, I am game.

This is like saying that BASF and Qaudagy DAT tapes sound different!!! :eek:

But, if you all want to believe you are hearing a difference, by all means, continue as you are. Who am I to tell you otherwise.

Ed
 
What dated info? You have a CD player with discrete power supplies? Problems in manufacturing processes disappear over time? Disks spinning at higher rates are suddenly as stable as disks spinning slowly?

This is all relatively simple mechanics. I'm not saying that one disc can sound better than another in the analog sense....I've provided you with plenty of purely digital reasons as to how errors an occur and effect sound, both time and physical discrepencies.

Slackmaster 2000
 
Im sensing a repeat of the "Green Marker Thread" here............

Anyway Mark, why don't you use your vast audiophile knowlege and tell me exactly how a CD player would read 1010001100011000100110 from a TDK disc differently than 1010001100011000100110 from a sony disc??????? It just does not make sense, it is nothing but ones and zeros and if some of the digits are left out or read wrong it won't make the sound any better it will just give you an error. THE DAMN MACHINE DOES NOT READ SEVERAL KINDS OF ONES AND SEVERAL KINDS OF ZEROS.
 
Two things come into play here that make this process difficult. We're not talking about copying digital files, we're talking about converting a digital stream from digital to analog, which is not a perfect process.

1) Jitter. Time based distortion. This is nothing out of a fairty tale and does not imply anything but 1's and 0's. Whether this has anything to do with our discussion of media, I'm not sure. If pit/land length do introduce jitter (as we know they do), AND that jitter can pass through the FIFO (which some people think), then media quality might very well have an audible effect. This is a clocked process and is not the same thing as copying a digital file.

2) Errors from a CD player are only detectable by listening unless you've got some fancy equipment or decent ripping software that will report this sort of thing. Even then, the ripping process involves repeated sampling and then assuming that a repeatable sample is correct, even though we know it might not be. Let's think about errors for a moment. What happens if an error is uncorrectable? Perhaps the sample is dropped. In this case, what happens? What happens to your audio if you lose say one sample per 1000. Can you hear it? Is it a clicking sound? It would be a very very very fast click. Think about this for a moment, it's fun. It might have an effect on higher frequencies which the CD spec of 44Khz can just barely cover (see nyquist). Now what happens if the CD player interpolates the bad samples? What happens to the sound? Certainly not any kind of clicking or popping or anything you'd typically associate with problems in the digital realm.

I dunno...just theorizing. I think I'm going to write a VST plugin that will introduce several types of error into an audio stream. It will be interesting at any rate (no pun intended).

Slackmaster 2000
 
Sorry, didn't mean to start a war. Blue Bear Sound seems really PO'd and Sonusman LOOKS really PO'd. To quote an old Monty Python sketch called something like, 'The Dirty Fork Sketch'; "It's a good thing I didn't say anything about the dirty knife!"
Given the fact that you guys seem to be all qualified audiophiles, I have come to these conclusions:

1.TDK, Kodak Gold, BASF and Maxell (with radiogold's report on their scratchability noted) are pretty safe bets.
2. Stay away from Memorex.
3. Slackmaster 2K, your knowledge is so much deeper than mine, I can't really understand what you are trying to say, but you never really come out and say a certain brand has been proven with mass scientific tests to be inferior or superior sounding, so I gather that, despite all the technical theory that certain media probably sounds better, it's still a matter of subjective opinion and experience.
4. It's just like anything else; there HAS to be some inferior stuff out there-- human beings just aren't that perfect yet.

Everybody, thanks for all your input: it's been very helpful. I love to watch you guys duke it out.

Brian
 
Nooooooooo!!!! Brian, these are not the conclusions you should draw:)....
First: if you believe a brand is of poor quality just because one 'qualified' person had a bad experience with it, you won't find any cdr's that pass the test....
understand this: it's not about finding a'perfect' cdr, it's about finding a good cdr/cd-burner combo. I've had some bad experiences with TDK cdrs but I'm not going to say they're bad....I just won't be buying them anymore since they don't work well with my burner:) (many coasters)
Always try a few samples before you buy any large amounts of cdrs to make sure they work well with you burner...
The orange book is simply the physical format for cdr's. The red book is the standard for audio cd's. So called 'audio' cdrs are just cdrs meant for stand alone recording units as regular data cdrs won't work on most of these. But I don't believe they're better or worth getting if you have a computer cd burner

a VERY good guide to cdrs:
http://www.cdrfaq.org/
 
OK, thanks, db51. I tend to think that Memorex may not be of the highest quality not just because of Slackmaster 2k's opinion, but also because of past experience with Memorex TAPES. Sometimes (but, admittedly, not always) 1 + 1 equals 2. The more I hear bad about something, the more I tend to shy away from it if I have other choices. This may not be the fairest or smartest thing to do, but it's a quicker/cheaper way of making a decision ;-). Your idea to sample small amounts of each is probably the best way to do it.

Thanks also for clearing up the Red Book/Orange Book, audio cd-r/data cd-r questions.

BTW, that's a very helpful link. One thing I learned already is that CDs we burn at home may not hold up to extreme temperatures as well as 'store bought' pre-recorded CDs. That may have prevented some future damage to my important discs. Also, that site seems to imply that you may be able to record track-at-once and still play back that CD-R on a regular CD player. A tech advisor from Plextor told me this wasn't possible. Who's right?
Brian
 
Last edited:
I didn't mean to imply that Memorex was a bad brand. I did have a bad experience with an entire block of 50 discs...so now I don't trust them anymore. But that's just me. If you stick your hand into the mystery hole and get burned, you're probably not going to stick your hand back into the mystery hole....or something....

Slackmaster 2000
 
I'm sorry I misquoted you Slack. I should have said your EXPERIENCE with Memorex- not your OPINION. I shouldn't be so hard on Memorex. I've had some problems with Maxell and TDK tapes in the past, too, and have kept buying them anyway. I guess bad batches are inevitable once in a while. I take it back Memorex.

Brian
 
CDR Materials and Durability

WOW!! I'm enjoying this hot discussion.

One final factor you must consider when purchasing CDR media is it's durability. What material is the metallic reflective layer made of and how good is the CDs protective coating. Throughout this discussion we have gone into great detail about the sound and how it’s recorded, but nothings been said about the longevity of media.

Another reason I chose TDK and BASF media is because they are not just gold disks, but also have double protection against damage. Once again the brand to brand manufacturing differences play part.

The standard CDR has four layers. The bottom layer is simply a transparent layer. (this is the layer were the lazer bounces off) The next layer up, is the dye layer. Then the Metallic Reflective Layer. And at the top — dah dah you guessed it — The protective label layer which is transparent. With better brands of CDR like TDK and BASF, they are two protective layers-making it five layers. The transparent one which I’ve just mentioned. Then the Layer that usually contains the brands name, or just a white writable layer which gives the CDR double protection.

The double layer in the short term will protect it from scratches. Scratches can happen when the disk is being placed into car players. As the disk is being inserted. It can sometimes make contact with the top of bottom of the insertion slot. This tends to happen as we all clumsily try with one hand to change CD’s in a traffic jam. (not me-I’m visually impaired) This could happen too, with Hi Fi Magazine systems or by simply misplacing disks. (my girl-friend constantly nags me). It's been noted heavily in the past how we should take care to protect the bottom of the disk as this is the lazer-beam readable side. In reality it’s just as important to protect the top. The thin plastic layer on the top of the disk is much more vulnerable to damage then the lazer-readable side on the bottom

Although you can’t avoid the accidental scratching of a disk through-out its life span; the better brands will give you many more years of audio insurance. With the double protection layer on the top and repair agents available, should the bottom get scratched, a good disk should give you a lifetime of listening pleasure.

You can have tunnel vision and just say it’s all “001010101101010” or you can look at the bigger picture and look at all the elements a CD is made of. We might as well go back 20 years and say all blank audio cassettes were all just a polyester tape and magnetic particles. We all know they were tapes that sounded pretty ordinary and other brands that sounded much better.

I have place all the ideas on this site that went through my mind before purchasing media. If you’re still not convinced that TDK and EMTEC/BASF are the best, db51 has the other option, buy a few of each brand and try them out. After all, this is how we learn. By trial and error.

Good luck

Mark
 
Materials, Materials, Materials

Carter,

Why don't we just go back twenty years and say OK. All audio tapes are the same. Audio Cassettes are a polyester spool with magnetic particles glued on. OK as you say –The sound on a CD is just 0101010100.

Well back then, sound is a just a wave form. To the average person, most audio tapes sound the same as they are all made to a industry standard. BUT BUT BUT you know very well when comparing different brands, they are differences in the sound quality. AND you even said it your self.

ORIGINAL QUOTE FROM CARTER SIMCOE
"It is nothing but ones and zeros and if some of the digits are left out or read wrong it won't make the sound any better it will just give you an error."

Therefore the difference is in the integrity of the materials of the brand. The amount of errors will fluctuate from brand to brand. Therefore better quality disks will have less errors then others. As I said on my first post on the thread-link, the sound differences are only discreet and not major.

Again it’s really up to the individual for what purpose they wish to use the CDs for. Is it just for listening in a car? Or like me, each CD that is being made will be used for mastering purposes. Sony, Kodak, Maxell, Memorex, Timpo, whatever brand you wish to talk about. TDK and BASF/EMTEC have the lowest error rates.

I guess I’ve got a slight case of the jitters. Slackmaster2K covered this aspect very well. As noted below,

ORIGINALLY QUOTED FROM SLACKMASTER2K
“ Jitter jitter jitter. It has been demonstrated that jitter can be burned onto a CD. It's copied to the disc via pit/land quality/spacing. Bear with me for a moment.

From a bob katz article:

"Any leakage current (interference) between the servo mechanism controlling the speed of the spinning disc and the crystal oscillator controlling the output of the buffer may unstabilize the crystal oscillator enough to add jitter to the clock signal. This does not change the data, by the way. If the servo is working harder to deal with a disc that has irregularly spaced pits or pits that are not clean, perhaps leakage from the servo power affects the crystal oscillator. It doesn't take much interference to alter a clock by a tiny amount."

And....

"Although the FIFO is supposed to eliminate all the jitter coming in, it doesn't seem to be doing an adequate job. One theory put forth by David Smith (of Sony Music) is that the crystal oscillator at the output of the FIFO is powered by the same power supply that powers the input of the FIFO. Thus, the variations in loading at the input to the FIFO are microcosmically transmitted to the output of the FIFO through the power supply. "

Ok, I'm glad you're still reading.

I believe that pit quality and spacing can introduce jitter into the signal. Pit quality dependant on the CD burner AND the media, pit spacing dependant on the burner alone (I'd assume).

Before you ask, pit spacing and quality certainly have an effect on the digital signal. In fact, it is the whole reason behind the eight to fourteen modulation (EMF) that audio CD's are burned with. Eight to fourteen recodes each byte to fourteen bits, lengthening pits and lands. The idea is to reduce the number of 0 to 1 and 1 to 0 transitions, minimizing the effects of small pits and lands and thereby minimizing the effects of jitter on the error rate.”

Some brands have a better quality dye that will compensate for the jitter aspect. The lazer burning aspect and media integrity importance is explained on the follow sight

http://www.tdk.com.au/products/audio/index.htm
And then select “Recordable CDs”

I’m not a TDK salesmen. - I only know that horrid-empty feeling when loosing a good recording through pressing it on bad media - I won’t be the sorry one many years down the track, when it will be too late. That once in a life-time recording maybe gone for good, or all that studio time wasted through ignorance. Degradation of a master recording may be accelerated during duplication due to the original recording being made on below standard media.

So again if you can’t hear the difference immediately, It’s worth looking at the bigger picture when investing in CD-R media.

Mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top