"Greening" a CD...fact or fiction??

  • Thread starter Thread starter zip
  • Start date Start date
I didn't LISTEN to the fucking rips, I analyzed the fucking 1's and 0's. Bitwise there was absolutely no difference between what had been taken off a greened and non-greened CDs.

These are the actual bits that hit whatever D/A converters are going to be used. These are AFTER the CDROM has read the disc. Figure it out.

And my choice to use a low end cd player was correct. Are you saying that high end CD players introduce more variance and are less correct? If any variance had been detected, it should have been LESS with an audiophile-grade CD player.

You have have an absolutely incorrect handle on the entire process of reading a CD. You also have absolutely no idea of the purpose of the error correction mechanism in a cd reader. Nor do you even understand error correction. If two streams of 1's and 0's hit the same D/A converters, you're saying that they will sound differently. Pull your head out of your analog ass and try to comprehend the digital world.

On a consumer grade CD player I can demonstrate that the bits it produces do not vary from take to take when reading a clean CD. What more do you want?

If that black rubber ring around your CD is making a difference in the sound then you most likely have a jitter problem. That's assuming the rubber ring you're talking about is one of those stabalizer rings that were popular in 1989 when CD players were in their infancy. It's the weight of these rings that matter, not the color.

You underestimate the "error correction" mechanism of your brain. Try listening to the same track twice. The first time look at a picture of high end audio gear. The second time look at a picture of low end crap that you hate. I guarantee that the music will sound differently. If it makes you feel better to color on your CD's, be my guest.

Slackmaster 2000
 
Hey Smelly Fuzz: Slack used some reputable tools to discern if the data being read by the CD player was really any different using the "green" technique. That seems to be the basis of this bogus claim. That the data read will be corrupted by stray light confusing the reader. No sloppy computer speakers or subjective ear/brain combos were involved. And he found no difference.

>5) I compared each regular track to its reference track using Windiff and Hex Edit's Compare tool.
>
>6) I compared each greened track to the reference tracks using Windiff and Hex Edit's Compare tool.
 
damn you guys....;)

I was just typing in that exact "same" reply and the board booted me.

Smelly fuzz... easy bro. My brick comment was in jest. I do not however believe in green markers and bricks...but that is my choice and my opinion.

I did both the marker and the brick comparison on my home stereo and found no difference...and that was through a pair of $4000 Thiel monitors - not PC speakers. It might not be the best system in the world - but for this purpose I think it will suffice.

You see I try to decide myself if things are true or not and so did slack...he did it with an editor and I did it with a commecial CD on a "decent" stereo...

I think we are just trying to say we didn't see or hear a difference.

peace d00d.

zip >>
 
DR S......

...can you make that damn avitar quit blinking like that?!? ;) I just got back from taking my kids to the RB&BB circus and my eyes are STILL trying to recover!!

lata.

zip >>
 
Slackmaster 2000

YOU ARE CORRECT SIR !

I do not know that much about tecno so & so.
As for error correction... you maybe correct about me again.

This guy seem to know more than I do about error correction.....

He seems to think that different CDR's sound different & he owns
a Mastering studio, then why can't a green marker make a difference?

WWW.johnvestman.com

THE MYTH OF DIGITAL SOUND

Myth: Digital sound doesn't loose quality when transferred.
There has been a long-held thought that digital can be transferred, cloned, copied, backed up etc. and the sound stays the same. Numbers are numbers, right? They are... if they stay *exactly* the same, but in the world of moving media/disks/tapes/digital consoles, they don't stay exactly the same in many cases. Bits can byte the dust!


Here's some experiences you may have had: Computers crash. Hard drives lose data (especially when they fail). Files get fragmented (mostly slows access, may cause crashes). Norton and other utility programs are popular ways of "recovering" corrupted files. If all the one's and zeros worked perfectly every time, none of these problems would occur, since each file would do exactly as it was supposed to do each and every time. While software is largely to blame, many digital formats (like DATS and CDRs) are just plain error-prone. Error correction makes these flaws invisible for the most part, but when it comes to your master, you want the ultimate... not second-best.


Set up: We are "imprinted" with the experience of analog music media. In other words, we are accustomed to an analog signal remaining the same when an analog volume control is moved. We are used to analog equalizers that shape the waveform vs. digital processors which internally recalculate numeric data and create an entirely new file.


Granted, digital does what it does well because it sure is convenient and it's put recording studios into the hands of a lot of people. It just has a different set of limitations that we weren't expecting when the technology came out. This is the same thing that occurred when we discovered that solid-state electronics didn't have some of the cool sonic qualities that tubes did.


The point of this discussion is so your best sounding master source is what arrives at the mastering session, instead of a copy that has lost spaciality, smoothness and coherency in the sound you actually recorded


SHOCK: Dat safety "clones" don't sound the same. Unless you have spent a good $1,300 on a solid stable low jitter clock locking unit and $700 on a precision AES cable (and have the expensive machines with word clock connections), dat safety "clones" sound more brittle in the highs, and less depth in the reverbs and room sounds. It's a more "dry" sound, if you will.


Better clocking in the mastering studio can help... but here's a better idea - when you're mixing, make two first-generation real-time passes on different tapes of each mix (one client of mine told me he mixes to Panasonic, Sony, and Tascam dats simultaneously because dats aren't 100% compatible on different decks). I know. It takes more studio time. The four extra minutes (ok maybe 15) it takes to make that 2nd copy is worth having a 1st generation back up, especially if you're sending it out of state to be mastered. Compare that 15 minutes to how much time you spent tracking that song.


Due to different error rates, cutting (I mean burning) cdrs at high speed (like 2X, 4X, etc.) also adds hardness to the highs and mid-highs. As my Sonic Solutions dealer says, "There is no such thing as a cdr clone." (One client of mine would have been better off using his 12X-copy "master" as a frisbee... it had major artifacts that were expensive to remove).


Different cdrs sound different. Even within the same brand. Their error rates vary, even with the kind of cd burner used. I've listened to Kodak's gold-on-gold "Writeable" cdrs, their gold-on- gold "Audio" cdrs, their gold-on-gold "Recordable" cdrs, their platinum-on-silver cdrs.... even Maxell (good) one-in-the-jewel-case (greenish on the bottom) sound different from the Maxell (better) 50-on-a-spindle (more blue-green bottom)...they all sound different! TDK's sound different from the Mitsui's, Verbatims, Sony's... and the bargain-basement cheapies are lucky if they even play!


Important: If you're cutting cds on a home computer, to get fewer errors, don't use the gold ink-on-the-bottm cdrs - use the green ink ones because gold ink cdrs require a more powerful laser than many cd burners have.


One studio owner asked me why a cd copied to his hard drive and then just burnt to cdr sounded so different. Well, I got some insight from a computer programmer: Software designers are sometimes required to program for efficiency instead of precision. This means in order to make a program run fast at a competitive price, they end up making it handle larger blocks of data at once, compromising the possible resolution of the sound. A small error within a block gets corrected, and thus the whole block is changed.


Even transferring a sound file from one hard drive to another changes the sound slightly. Never mind "saving" files to cdr or dat backup and then reloading back into a hard disk system. I know of a top music editor for film in LA who only uses one brand of hard drive because he can hear the difference between brands. This is a highly controversial issue, with quite a few high-end computer professionals bringing forth a challenge: Changes and errors in data can occur in many instances, but not for WAV files... but wait... is it possible that different containment, location and physical access characteristics make a difference in the sound, even if the file is an exact clone? Some say that the file goes from hard drive to buffer before getting to the i/o card, but could there be other factors? Stay tuned as the Digital Mystery evolves and more tests are reported here...


Meanwhile: The Pro Tools studio next door did an experiment with me. We took a digitial cable directly from his rig and recorded a song into my Sonic Solutions. Next we took the same mix and loaded it into my system off a cdr cut directly through his computer (a difference of one digital generation). We then compared the sound of the two files on my system. AMAZING. The exact mix brought in via the direct cable version sounded fuller, wider, smoother, more open, more detailed, more musical and expressive. The cdr version sounded choked, grainy, and had less width. It wasn't even subtle, and all three of the engineers in the room agreed.


Cutting cdrs (ok, burning cdrs...) at 2X sounds different than 1X. I invited a professional engineer and a stereophile guy to listen to the same album on two different cdrs... one cut at 1X one at 2X. The engineer preferred the 1X, and thought the cdrs had different mixes on them. The stereophile guy simply felt the sound on the 1X was sweeter and wider.


Make sure if your first-generation master mix is onto cdr, burn it at 1X. On my cdr masters, I make sure that I include the instructions, "Cut glass at 1X ONLY." Even though some pressing plants will say that cutting a glass master at 2X creates fewer errors (and saves them valuable glass-mastering time), I insist on 1X, just as all the major mastering guys do. And keep your bits high - 24 bit sounds better than 16 bits... well then...


analog sounds better than either in most cases...

If you are recording from a digital source like a computer or a hard drive system like the Roland 1680 (Akai's are my favorite) onto a DAT or stand-alone cd burner, be sure to use the best digital cables you can afford. Cables make a significant difference - a $350 SPDIF cable makes as much difference as a $3,000 converter.

I also recommend if you're a musician/studio owner, that you are remembering that none of this technical advices means as much as the heart and soul of your music - your musicianship - the actual thing that all of this stuff is designed to reproduce and deliver to the audience who wants to hear you. When you're considering upgrading to the next piece of gear... consider if additional practice will improve your sound... even more than the slick new feature-filled Platinum Pro Version 39 Giga-Gizmo!
 
>Myth: Digital sound doesn't loose quality when transferred.
>There has been a long-held thought that digital can be transferred, cloned, copied, backed up etc. and the sound stays the same. Numbers are numbers,

That's exactly what Slack proved. Sorry to disappoint you.

Don't mean to annoy you Zip (or anyone else), but if you're too hung over to read the post below mine without being distracted by my psychedelic avatar, may I suggest the down-arrow key to scroll it off of your screen? The blinking that makes it more unavoidable than any gif you've ever encountered was part of the design! I'm new at this so cut me some slack.
I'll experiment with slowing down the frame rate if I get enough crisp $100 bills mailed to me. :)
 
Some of that is absolutely incorrect. Dangerously incorrect in fact.

Transferring a song from "one hard drive to another hard drive" does in NO WAY affect the sound. It is 100% impossible except in the case of drive failure. The ONLY way that the sound can change is if those bits change. I guarantee that the bits will not change when copying from one good drive to another...if they DID change, you wouldn't be reading this on that computer...you'd be looking at a blue screen. As a computer scientist and software engineer I guarantee you that it is impossible. The only way that your sound can degrade based on a hard drive is if the drive is not keeping up and you're getting dropouts in your audio stream. This has nothing to do with 1's and 0's.

He makes a few points about CDR and DAT that are true but then he goes and blows it by saying, "And keep your bits high - 24 bit sounds better than 16 bits... well then... " ... in fact we all know that CD Audio is 16 bit. If he's burning 24 bit files then he's burning DATA audio files. There can be NO errors in a DATA file...if there are, you're not going to pull it off of the CD. If your archiving data then it doesn't matter what speed you burn at as long as your burner is operating correctly and your media is truely rated for that speed.

Do you think that images look better when they're stored on a good hard drive? Do images copied from a CDR appear duller than the original? No! Learn the difference between CD Audio and digital data....CD Audio is an exception that confuses a lot of people.

If this is where you're getting your information, then it is no wonder that you are confused.

Try somebody with a bit more knowledge in this particular area: http://www.digido.com Just because somebody is a world famous engineer doesn't mean that they have a firm grasp on all of the science.

Slackmaster 2000
 
"CD Audio is an exception that confuses a lot of people."

I agree... therefore perhaps things like cables, speaker stands, & green markers
improve the sound.

"If this is where you're getting your information, then it is
no wonder that you are confused. "

This is not where I get ALL of my information.....
I get info here too.
However, I'm not confused. On my system I do hear subtle differences
with small changes to it.

Besides what makes him wrong & you right?

What are you credentials?

I tell you mine... I have spent many hours listing to hi-end equipment.
This was before & after many purchases.
I have also performed test comparing cables, speakers, feet, & green markers...ETC.
Some change the sound a little & some change the sound a lot.

As far as the Green Marker is concerned...
I used something called the CD STOPLITE.
It is not a SHARPEE or a regular magic marker, but it is green
it is opaque and it absolutely takes away from some of the harshness that some CDs have.

This is not something you can hear on a CPU SETUP, CAR STEREO, or a BOOM BOX!
On my system, where there is no motor running, no hard drive whining
and nothing else going on, you can hear it.

ONE FINAL QUESTION.
When an engineer at a pro studio starts a mixing process,
does he open all the windows, blow dry his hair, turn a fan on?

NO... So when I listen and compare things like a green marker
my living room is dead quite, the lights may be low, I may even close my eyes to keep out any distractions, & I sit right in front of the speakers and then I can give anything a fare test.
 
I give up.

My credentials? Well, I also listen to music in the dark. I don't have hair so there's no hair dryer to get in the way.

I don't listen to music critically on a boombox, and since we're on a recording BBS you should instantly know better than to start bringing silly matters such as equipment into this argument.

What makes me right is the simple fact that once the data stream leaves the reading mechanism, there's nothing about the light bouncing around the player that's going to make a difference to that stream of bits. I demonstrated that that particular stream of bits does not changed based on the color of the outer rim of the CD. My credentials are a BS in computer science, years spent as a developer, and a childhood wasted in the computer.

You are coming here without any scientific evidence and no ability to produce scientific evidence. You then refute scientific evidence using your goldenears and a guy who has NO computer/engineering credentials. What I'm telling you and what you are ignoring, is that the bits that are hitting your DA converters are the same regardless of whether the CD is green or not. You are arguing that you hear a difference and the only way this is possible is if those bits are NOT consistant.

You would not be able to tell the difference between a greened CD and a regular CD in a double blind test with any amount of reliability. Prove to me that you can, and I'll listen. The simple fact of the matter is that NOBODY has passed a double blind test in this regard and nobody ever will.

I know you don't believe me because I'm just some guy on the web and you listen to your stereo in the dark. But here is some more info to completely ignore:

http://www.snopes2.com/music/media/marker.htm
http://www.urbanlegends.com/misc/cd/marking_cds.html
http://www.snopes2.com/music/info/greening.htm
http://www.solorb.com/dat-heads//digests/V2.900/D922
http://www.twcny.rr.com/technofile/texts/tec031697.html
http://it.aminet.net/pub/electronics/REPAIR/F_cd_repairc.html#CDREPAIRC_007
http://www.emediapro.net/news/2000/07/news0700-02.html

Slackmaster 2000
 
i read the story of John Vestman and you smellyfuzz have misunderstood his point completely if you ask me... ok you don't but that doesn't bother me ;)

his point about digital copies not being the same reffered to using cheap cdwriters and or cd-r. at least in my point of view. But then again i didn't read it in the dark with my eyes closed LOL ;)

guhlenn
 
OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!

I just checked out some of those links that Slack posted.....

I had NO IDEA of some of those other tweaks.......... even Sam Tellig (from StereoPhile seems to be somewhat self-delusional!) Freezing your discs improves HF response????????? Devices that discharge the "unwanted static electricity" of a rotating disc???????????????? Metal foil on the shell of both cassettes AND cds?????????

I've said this before -- BIG F*CKIN' YIKES!!!!!!!!!!

I guess digital technology is such a big mystery to most people, they're open to all kinds of snake oil........

I remember arguing with some people years ago regarding the engine and oil additives for cars... I betcha there's a high correlation between people who buy snake oil for their cars and those who buy the snake oil for the CDs and audio systems............

Bruce
*still shaking his head*
 
One thing struck me. Why are audio CD players so prone to the "stray laser syndrome" while computer CD players apparently aren't? If greening your CDs help, it must mean that the audio CD player isn't reading what's on the CD in a correct way in the first place, which would be an unacceptable situation in the computer CD player world. Start messing with the bits and your data CD don't work at all. If greening CDs help, wouldn't that mean that audio CD players are flawed and that audiophiles would be better off hooking up a regular data CD to their $10,000 hifi systems?

Just wondering...

/Ola
 
The CD ripping program at http://www.xiph.org/paranoia/ has error status meters. Maybe someone can do A/B testing using this visually. (I'd do it but I don't have a green marker, and I don't have time this week to dip myself in snake oil, roll in powdered chicken lips and dance nekkid in the graveyard at midnight.)

Oh, and there's a FAQ there that might answer why an audio CD is more prone to errors than a CD ROM.
 
Ola,

Data CD's are encoded in such a manner as to provide much better error detection and correction (both in the physical and mathematical sense). Data is simply "more important" than audio, and for the most part no errors are tolerable. I believe data CD's use cyclic redundancy.

Audio CD's on the other hand use a simpler error detection/correction scheme...two dimensional parity. I *think* it can mathematically correct up to two bit errors per byte but don't quote me.

What most people are "afraid" of when it comes to error correction is the "guessing" that might be going on when there is an error on an audio CD. Most audio CD players will somehow mask errors to prevent nasty pops and clicks. Some simply drop the data, and other will use linear interpolation. Since there's no "error light" on your CD player, people are worried that what they're hearing is incorrect. In reality, all CD's are produced such that they will have an error rate that is less than what can be mathematically corrected. This correction is not "guessing", it can actually detect and reverse incorrect bits (up to a point). For all intents and purposes, this error rate is so low that even if a few errors got by, it would not effect the overall perceived quality of the audio.

It bothers me when people think that errors are somehow responsible for a narrower stereo field and shit like that. Those would be some magic errors. Why don't the errors ever widen the stereo field? Heh. "I think that all the errors on this CD are responsible for the interesting reverb trails." If you have a disc with a high enough error rate (e.g. scratched or damaged), you're probably going to hear it in the form of clicks and pops or dropouts...at least on some of your material. (the sheer odds of all of your CD's being damaged in the same manner such that they all produce poor intrument seperation is an obsurd concept)

This isn't analog. When analog devices start to fail you begin to notice subtle differences. You will notice perhaps a poor bass response, poor seperation, etc etc. When digital devices start go go sour you begin to notice major differences...such as no audio.

Slackmaster 2000
 
Let's take a step back....

You guy seem to be putting forth tech data to prove your point on this
green marker issue.

You all may be right....

But...

Can you measure if something is pretty or not
If something is smelly or not
If something tastes bad or not
If something feels good or not
If something sounds less harsh or not

Slackmaster,

I think it would be cool if you left out the insults!

AND if those websites are where you are getting your information.....


GUHLENN,

I felt that his point was that if dupe a CD it may not sound the same
even though if you were to do all different types of measuring test
the data would say that they were identical & therefore there would be no
sound difference.


SMELLYFUZZ
 
Last edited:
You're continuing to miss the point, smelly. The bits read from the CD tell the speakers how much to move. If the bits are the same (which they were in Slack's test) then your speakers will move the same and they will produce the same sound. It helps to understand what you're talking about.
 
I'll leave out the insults when you stop accusing me of listening to music on a cheap boombox while drying my hair. It was your insecurity that set off my insecurity.

You probably didn't read any of that crap, so I'll directly quote the Ranada article which went MUCH furthure than me to demonstrate that nothing at all is happening:

"Nonetheless, I decided to test for the presence of edge reflections in the pickup output. I painted only one half the circumference of a disc, and observed the direct output of the laser pickup on an oscilloscope (the so-called "eye pattern"). If there were a major effect on the laser output, it would have been visible as a once-per-revolution change in the eye pattern. I saw none. (Changes in eye pattern due to the processes used at different CD mastering and pressing plants are far more obvious than any possible changes induced by edge reflection. I haven't heard of any cults growing around the sonic quality of the pressings of a specific CD manufacturer, as there used to be with the LP, and there shouldn't be any.) "

"To check this possibility, I hooked up my trusty disc-error counter to my equally trusty first-generation CD player. I ran before-and-after correctable-error counts thirty times for a one-minute, twenty-second track near the edge of a 71-minute CD (surely the effect would be most obvious near a disc edge, where the returning reflections would be at their strongest). The average number of fully correctable data errors before treatment: 899.23, plus or minus 4.06. After treatment, the number rose to 909.13, plus or minus 5.34. This is essentially identical behavior, even though it looks like the error count increased. There were no uncorrectable errors (data interpolations) -- either before or after painting the edges. "

This discussion is pointless. If you honestly think that a green line on your CD has anything to do with the actual sound coming out of your speakers....that's fine. Whatever helps.

I remember reading an article about Hendrix...apparently he was fanatical about the condition of his fuzz boxes. He would request that they be rebuilt or replaced so often that his roadies would simply take the box away and return in time with the SAME box claiming that it had been rebuilt or was new. Hendrix would agree that it sounded much better.

Slackmaster 2000
 
This is essentially identical behavior, even though it looks like the error count increased.
There were no uncorrectable errors (data interpolations) --
either before or after painting the edges. "

SLACK 2000

I get what your saying.

Your point is that if you can not measure a difference there is none???
Do you believe that no matter what... all cables / interconnects sound he same?
Do you feel that all cd players sound the same if they have the same measurements?
What about Amps, pre-amps, speakers...
If you were to measure (and I do not know how) a Gibson & a Fender,
would there be a difference?

This is not an enticement... I want to know your point of view?


PGLEWIS

I do not think I'm missing the point.
I believe all of your are....

I ask again...

Can you measure
if something is pretty or not
If something is smelly or not
If something tastes bad or not
If something feels good or not
If something sounds less harsh or not
 
smellyfuzz,

what if this is the situation that happened during investigation of whether greened CDs sound better:

1. no cables were changed in the before and after tests,

2. same thing with the interconnects,

3. the CD player stayed the same

4. amps, speakers, etc. all stayed the same.

In fact, let's say that the only difference is that the CD had no green marking for one play, and then had it for the next play.

In other words we're nailing down all the variables aside from the green marking. Let's say you observe the signal (by comparing waveforms or 1's and 0's, BUT not by listening) from the player, whether it be digital or analog and you observe no difference. Can you still say that there still may be a significant difference in the sound quality even if everything else has been painstakingly kept constant between the two trials?

As an aside, there is a way to determine whether something sounds "prettier": get a bunch of people and perform a double-blind listening test, and make sure you get enough people so that you maybe able to have a statistically significant study.
 
smellyfuzz said:


I ask again...

Can you measure
if something is pretty or not
If something is smelly or not
If something tastes bad or not
If something feels good or not
If something sounds less harsh or not

No you cannot measure these things cuz these things are subjective opinions. you can measure DIFFERENCE. if it's really "harsher" then something else it NEEDS to be different. If something is the same you will still hear something else then me. Because you want to. Honest. If you wanna hear something, You WILL hear it. if it's there or not. the mind is a real fuck up you know. But you really refuse to accept that .

guhlenn
 
Back
Top