Hi,

Wondering about the audio quality of a home-made CD disc if I make it the
following way:

* Copy the desired audio files (in full AIFF format) off the original
store-bought CDs and onto my computer's hard drive. I've done this on my Mac
desktop (running OSX) by simply dragging the audio files (tracks) from the
original CD to a new folder

* Using Toast Lite to create an audio disc on a CD-R

These new home-made "Greatest Hits" discs will be played back on my
fine-quality audio system (Arcam, Audio Physic, etc.).

Since I'm using full-blown AIFF files (that is, no compression like MP3s),
will the sound quality on the home-made disc exactly match the original
store-bought disc?

Or is there something I'm missing in the process?

Any thoughts or opinions appreciated.

David

It'll cost you a dollar to find out.

If you can't tell the difference, it's good enough.


R.


--
www.richiebee.ca
Scenic Newfoundland :: MM Fireworks Resources :: My Music
www.funkydory.ca
funkysoulgroovedancemachine
"David Hallerman" wrote in message
ink.net...
Hi,

Wondering about the audio quality of a home-made CD disc if I make it the
following way:

* Copy the desired audio files (in full AIFF format) off the original
store-bought CDs and onto my computer's hard drive. I've done this on my
Mac
desktop (running OSX) by simply dragging the audio files (tracks) from the
original CD to a new folder

* Using Toast Lite to create an audio disc on a CD-R

These new home-made "Greatest Hits" discs will be played back on my
fine-quality audio system (Arcam, Audio Physic, etc.).

Since I'm using full-blown AIFF files (that is, no compression like MP3s),
will the sound quality on the home-made disc exactly match the original
store-bought disc?

Or is there something I'm missing in the process?

Any thoughts or opinions appreciated.

David

"David Hallerman" wrote in message
ink.net
Hi,

Wondering about the audio quality of a home-made CD disc if I make it
the following way:

* Copy the desired audio files (in full AIFF format) off the original
store-bought CDs and onto my computer's hard drive. I've done this on
my Mac desktop (running OSX) by simply dragging the audio files
(tracks) from the original CD to a new folder

* Using Toast Lite to create an audio disc on a CD-R

These new home-made "Greatest Hits" discs will be played back on my
fine-quality audio system (Arcam, Audio Physic, etc.).

Since I'm using full-blown AIFF files (that is, no compression like
MP3s), will the sound quality on the home-made disc exactly match the
original store-bought disc?

Or is there something I'm missing in the process?

Your procedure sounds good, but there's a hidden agenda. Not every audio CD
player is perfectly happy with CD-Rs of a given brand and production lot,
and when made using your choice of burning speed, etc. Some may reject any
and all CD-Rs. Others will have faults that are more subtle than "Just plain
won't work".

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:19:27 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):
Hi,

Thanks for the feedback, Arny. The disc works (as in plays), but what are
some possible "faults that are more subtle"? I mean, I'm not sure if the
sound quality is as good as the original, hence my original post.

This is a new audio CD player, an Arcam CD93.

David


"David Hallerman" wrote in message
ink.net
Hi,

Wondering about the audio quality of a home-made CD disc if I make it
the following way:

* Copy the desired audio files (in full AIFF format) off the original
store-bought CDs and onto my computer's hard drive. I've done this on
my Mac desktop (running OSX) by simply dragging the audio files
(tracks) from the original CD to a new folder

* Using Toast Lite to create an audio disc on a CD-R

These new home-made "Greatest Hits" discs will be played back on my
fine-quality audio system (Arcam, Audio Physic, etc.).

Since I'm using full-blown AIFF files (that is, no compression like
MP3s), will the sound quality on the home-made disc exactly match the
original store-bought disc?

Or is there something I'm missing in the process?

Your procedure sounds good, but there's a hidden agenda. Not every audio CD
player is perfectly happy with CD-Rs of a given brand and production lot,
and when made using your choice of burning speed, etc. Some may reject any
and all CD-Rs. Others will have faults that are more subtle than "Just plain
won't work".

Gee, isn't this a friendly Usenet group?

Cost me a dollar? Heck, that's a Canadian dollar, if you say it, which I
believe is discounted versus the US dollar.

And if I'm not certain about the difference? And if I want to understand the
process?

David, who finds in the rec.bicycles.tech newsgroup a clear question gets a
clear answer and not passing the buck

=====

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:04:34 -0400, RichieBee wrote
(in article ):

It'll cost you a dollar to find out.

If you can't tell the difference, it's good enough.


R.


--
www.richiebee.ca
Scenic Newfoundland :: MM Fireworks Resources :: My Music
www.funkydory.ca
funkysoulgroovedancemachine
"David Hallerman" wrote in message
ink.net...
Hi,

Wondering about the audio quality of a home-made CD disc if I make it the
following way:

* Copy the desired audio files (in full AIFF format) off the original
store-bought CDs and onto my computer's hard drive. I've done this on my
Mac
desktop (running OSX) by simply dragging the audio files (tracks) from the
original CD to a new folder

* Using Toast Lite to create an audio disc on a CD-R

These new home-made "Greatest Hits" discs will be played back on my
fine-quality audio system (Arcam, Audio Physic, etc.).

Since I'm using full-blown AIFF files (that is, no compression like MP3s),
will the sound quality on the home-made disc exactly match the original
store-bought disc?

Or is there something I'm missing in the process?

Any thoughts or opinions appreciated.

David

"David Hallerman" wrote in message
ink.net
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:19:27 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):
Hi,

Thanks for the feedback, Arny. The disc works (as in plays), but what
are some possible "faults that are more subtle"? I mean, I'm not sure
if the sound quality is as good as the original, hence my original
post.

Possibilities are generally not all that subtle, just subtle compared to
simply not working.

I'm talking about skips, tics, pops, bursts of distortion, drop-outs etc.

Ah, then.

So if the CD-R plays, and there are no aural glitches like those you mention
("skips, tics, pops, bursts of distortion, drop-outs"), then the
computer-made copy is as good, sonically, as the original store-bought disc?

Thanks.

=====


On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 13:14:44 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"David Hallerman" wrote in message
ink.net
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:19:27 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):
Hi,

Thanks for the feedback, Arny. The disc works (as in plays), but what
are some possible "faults that are more subtle"? I mean, I'm not sure
if the sound quality is as good as the original, hence my original
post.

Possibilities are generally not all that subtle, just subtle compared to
simply not working.

I'm talking about skips, tics, pops, bursts of distortion, drop-outs etc.

"David Hallerman" wrote in message
nk.net
Ah, then.

So if the CD-R plays, and there are no aural glitches like those you
mention ("skips, tics, pops, bursts of distortion, drop-outs"), then
the computer-made copy is as good, sonically, as the original
store-bought disc?

Right, the same bits get sent to the DACs with the same exact timing.

David Hallerman wrote:

So if the CD-R plays, and there are no aural glitches like those you mention
("skips, tics, pops, bursts of distortion, drop-outs"), then the
computer-made copy is as good, sonically, as the original store-bought disc?

A Finder copy wont use the error correction data of the CD. An iTunes
import will if you set that option in its preferences (import). You can
import to AIFF, WAV or Apple lossless and the files are also directly
accessible from the Finder.

/Lars


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:37:29 GMT, David Hallerman
wrote:

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:19:27 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):
Hi,

Thanks for the feedback, Arny. The disc works (as in plays), but what are
some possible "faults that are more subtle"? I mean, I'm not sure if the
sound quality is as good as the original, hence my original post.

This is a new audio CD player, an Arcam CD93.

David


"David Hallerman" wrote in message
ink.net
Hi,

Wondering about the audio quality of a home-made CD disc if I make it
the following way:

* Copy the desired audio files (in full AIFF format) off the original
store-bought CDs and onto my computer's hard drive. I've done this on
my Mac desktop (running OSX) by simply dragging the audio files
(tracks) from the original CD to a new folder

* Using Toast Lite to create an audio disc on a CD-R

These new home-made "Greatest Hits" discs will be played back on my
fine-quality audio system (Arcam, Audio Physic, etc.).

Since I'm using full-blown AIFF files (that is, no compression like
MP3s), will the sound quality on the home-made disc exactly match the
original store-bought disc?

Or is there something I'm missing in the process?

Your procedure sounds good, but there's a hidden agenda. Not every audio CD
player is perfectly happy with CD-Rs of a given brand and production lot,
and when made using your choice of burning speed, etc. Some may reject any
and all CD-Rs. Others will have faults that are more subtle than "Just plain
won't work".




Arny is trying to show you how much he thinks he knows. The simple
answer to your question is that the copy is a bit for bit copy. Of
course there may be some loss. But even your dog cannot hear it. The
loss is what the cd ripper can and cannot read. Don't worry about
blanks and burn speed. If it works it works.

Abbedd

"Bert Kraaijpoel" wrote in message


I find that computer CD-readers often do not get the audio data in as
well as I would like. Part of this might be because CD-audio is stored
in a non computer like way. Not in a hierarchical file structure but
as a continuous stream.

CD readers have the capability of reading audio CDs in groups of contiguous
blocks, as well as entire tracks. The original CD ROM spec allowed some
ambiguity for block reads, but software was developed to compensate for this
ambiguity. Most if not all modern CDROMs are now capable of doing accurate
reads at the block level. So, in essence audio CDs can be read in by means
of the simplistic file structure that the audio CD standard implements.

Most if not all CD ripping software takes advantage of block reading to
support some kind of retry facility. If there is an error while reading, the
read operation can be retried until consistent results are detected. The
nature of optical discs is that erroneous data tends to be inconsistent,
while correct data is consistent. If a chunk of data is read erroneously, it
can reread until it is read without errors, or the data that is read shows a
consistent pattern.

When the CD does not read easily - due to scratches, peanut butter
etc.

....the computer software uses error-recovery techniques that are not usually
available to regular audio CD players. The proof of the effectiveness of the
computer audio CD reading software is the fact that discs that won't play
well on audio CD players can often be read on a computer with perfect
results.

- errors (minor pops or clicks) may appear in the (digital!) audio
data without even an error message on your screen.

Other than discs that are deliberately tricked up as a consequence of some
copy-protection technique, a good CDROM can reasonably be expected to read a
given disc with fewer errors than an audio CD player. This has been my
experience in many cases.

Even if the reading process performs the CD error handling correctly
the data stored on you HD can be different from data originally
recorded on the CD. The error handling allows for this (error
concealment).

If the disc is so damaged that it can't possibly be read accurately, it's
reasonable for the software to do everything possible to provide a
reasonable result. If you're in doubt about the accuracy of a given attempt
at ripping a CD, simply rip it again and compare the two results using the
file comparison facilities built into popular ripping software such as CDEX
and EAC. If the results are consistent, then they are very likely to be
error free. If they are not error free, then they are very likely to be
inconsistent.

The audio data on your hard disk can be correctly burned onto a CD-R,
but when that is read in your CD-player error handling is done once
again. So for the second time the audio that is played may not be
exactly as recorded. Since CD-R is not exactly a CD according to the
Red Book standard, some CD-players may have difficulty in reading
those.

If a CD is too badly damaged, there may be uncorrected errors. However, the
copy and successive copies of it will add no more error, unless of course it
also becomes damaged.

ansermetniac wrote:

Arny is trying to show you how much he thinks he knows. The simple
answer to your question is that the copy is a bit for bit copy. Of
course there may be some loss. But even your dog cannot hear it. The
loss is what the cd ripper can and cannot read. Don't worry about
blanks and burn speed. If it works it works.

Abbedd

And Abbedd is showing how much he doesn't know. Every read of an audio CD
ivolves errors, some correctable, and some not (which are 'fixed' by
interpolation and in extreme cases momentary muting).

If it was a bit-for-bit copy, where is the loss you mention that the dog
cannot hear ?

But the bottom line is that it's as good a copy as you are going to get, and
unless there is some notibale problem, there is no problem

geoff

David Hallerman wrote in message link.net...

Any thoughts or opinions appreciated.

If you buy the blank CD-R's that are slightly green, then you don't
need to use the green magic marker ;-)

I have another problem copying CD's. My children have destroyed a
couple of my favorite disks, mainly by badly scratching them. Is there
a technique for polishing out the scratches? Granted, I don't expect
anything to work on tooth marks.

Detector195 wrote:
David Hallerman wrote in message
link.net...

Any thoughts or opinions appreciated.

If you buy the blank CD-R's that are slightly green, then you don't
need to use the green magic marker ;-)

I have another problem copying CD's. My children have destroyed a
couple of my favorite disks, mainly by badly scratching them. Is there
a technique for polishing out the scratches? Granted, I don't expect
anything to work on tooth marks.

Yeah, with varying degrees of success - you can buy them at most music
stores here. But not on the rear surface....

geoff

On 3 Sep 2004 20:53:55 -0700, (Detector195)
wrote:

I have another problem copying CD's. My children have destroyed a
couple of my favorite disks, mainly by badly scratching them. Is there
a technique for polishing out the scratches? Granted, I don't expect
anything to work on tooth marks.

Metal polish. Or the stuff sold for "cutting back" car paintwork.
Toothpaste for the final polish. Or I'm sure hi-fi stores offer tiny
jars of similar at triple price :-)

David,

will the sound quality on the home-made disc exactly match the original

I agree with those who say you'll either have audible problems like clicks
and pops, or no problems at all. But one thing nobody mentioned is that it's
REALLY EASY for you to determine the quality of your copy. Simply extract an
AIFF file from the copy, and do a bit comparison with the original file.

Note that a bit comparison will fail if there's an extra 1/1000th second of
silence added to the start of the copy, or some other difference that has
nothing to do with audio quality. In that case you can instead do the "null"
test on the two files. Load them side by side into a DAW program, line up
the tracks in time so they're aligned perfectly (to one sample), then flip
the polarity of one track. When you play the two tracks at the same volume,
if the tracks are identical you'll hear silence.

--Ethan

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 12:21:38 +1200, "Geoff Wood"
-nospam wrote:

ansermetniac wrote:

Arny is trying to show you how much he thinks he knows. The simple
answer to your question is that the copy is a bit for bit copy. Of
course there may be some loss. But even your dog cannot hear it. The
loss is what the cd ripper can and cannot read. Don't worry about
blanks and burn speed. If it works it works.

Abbedd

And Abbedd is showing how much he doesn't know. Every read of an audio CD
ivolves errors, some correctable, and some not (which are 'fixed' by
interpolation and in extreme cases momentary muting).

If it was a bit-for-bit copy, where is the loss you mention that the dog
cannot hear ?

But the bottom line is that it's as good a copy as you are going to get, and
unless there is some notibale problem, there is no problem

geoff

The losses are so insignificant you cannot hear it. Unless you are a
pompous ass theoretical douchebag

Abbedd

"Arny Krueger" writes:

"David Hallerman" wrote in message
nk.net
Ah, then.

So if the CD-R plays, and there are no aural glitches like those you
mention ("skips, tics, pops, bursts of distortion, drop-outs"), then
the computer-made copy is as good, sonically, as the original
store-bought disc?

Right, the same bits get sent to the DACs with the same exact timing.

So you're saying that if it's a perfect copy then it's a perfect
copy?

The phenomenom I haven't seen anyone mention is the following. When
the new disc is read, there may or may not be errors in the raw
bits on the CD. However, there is a lot of forward error correction
on a CD, so depending on how many bit errors there are and where
they are, they may or may not be correctable.

If all errors are correctable by the FEC, then the disc will play
back perfectly, EXACTLY as the original.

If an uncorrectable bit error occurs, the result may or may not
be audible depending on the nature of the error and the masking
that may have been performed by the player.

There may be software out there that can tell you if there are
uncorrectable errors on the copied CD. Try a google.
--
% Randy Yates % "How's life on earth?
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % ... What is it worth?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)',
%%%% % *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

Somebody wrote:

will the sound quality on the home-made disc exactly match the original

It can be better! This afternoon I made a copy of a CD that skipped a
lot in my player, making the original CD unlistenable. The copy plays
perfect. This is of course easy to explain in that the CD reader in my
PC is a lot more modern unit that can take more flaws, and the copy
will be without these.

Nonetheless, it is nice to be able to restore old scratchy CDs this
way.

Per.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" writes:

"David Hallerman" wrote in message
nk.net
Ah, then.

So if the CD-R plays, and there are no aural glitches like those you
mention ("skips, tics, pops, bursts of distortion, drop-outs"), then
the computer-made copy is as good, sonically, as the original
store-bought disc?

Right, the same bits get sent to the DACs with the same exact timing.

So you're saying that if it's a perfect copy then it's a perfect
copy?

Yes.

The phenomenom I haven't seen anyone mention is the following. When
the new disc is read, there may or may not be errors in the raw
bits on the CD. However, there is a lot of forward error correction
on a CD, so depending on how many bit errors there are and where
they are, they may or may not be correctable.

If all errors are correctable by the FEC, then the disc will play
back perfectly, EXACTLY as the original.

Agreed.

If an uncorrectable bit error occurs, the result may or may not
be audible depending on the nature of the error and the masking
that may have been performed by the player.

Agreed.

There may be software out there that can tell you if there are
uncorrectable errors on the copied CD. Try a google.

IME uncorrectable errors are random. Therefore, if you rip the same track
twice, and get consistent results, there were no uncorrectable errors.

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message

David,

will the sound quality on the home-made disc exactly match the
original

I agree with those who say you'll either have audible problems like
clicks and pops, or no problems at all. But one thing nobody
mentioned is that it's REALLY EASY for you to determine the quality
of your copy. Simply extract an AIFF file from the copy, and do a bit
comparison with the original file.

Note that a bit comparison will fail if there's an extra 1/1000th
second of silence added to the start of the copy, or some other
difference that has nothing to do with audio quality.

I don't know about Mac software, but there are a number of freebies for the
PC that will automatically synch and resynch files.

For example:

CDEX ripper file compare built-in utility
EAC ripper file compare built-in utility
(both are essentially freeware - see google)

MS-DOS and win9x FC command

In the case of CD track comparisons, synching is facilitated by the fact
that data is in some sense perfectly aligned if aligned at all, and usually
padded with zeroes.

In that case
you can instead do the "null" test on the two files. Load them side
by side into a DAW program, line up the tracks in time so they're
aligned perfectly (to one sample), then flip the polarity of one
track. When you play the two tracks at the same volume, if the tracks
are identical you'll hear silence.

Got to be careful with this because alignment within one sample of nominally
identical files can still lead to instantaneous differences on the order of
FS. If the files come from the analog domain by separate paths, there is
almost zero chance of perfect alignment.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" writes:

"David Hallerman" wrote in message
nk.net
Ah, then.

So if the CD-R plays, and there are no aural glitches like those you
mention ("skips, tics, pops, bursts of distortion, drop-outs"), then
the computer-made copy is as good, sonically, as the original
store-bought disc?

Right, the same bits get sent to the DACs with the same exact timing.

So you're saying that if it's a perfect copy then it's a perfect
copy?

The phenomenom I haven't seen anyone mention is the following. When
the new disc is read, there may or may not be errors in the raw
bits on the CD. However, there is a lot of forward error correction
on a CD, so depending on how many bit errors there are and where
they are, they may or may not be correctable.

If all errors are correctable by the FEC, then the disc will play
back perfectly, EXACTLY as the original.

If an uncorrectable bit error occurs, the result may or may not
be audible depending on the nature of the error and the masking
that may have been performed by the player.

There may be software out there that can tell you if there are
uncorrectable errors on the copied CD. Try a google.

Nero CD-DVD Speed (bundled with most recent versions of Nero Burning Rom or
Nero Express) as well as testing drive performance can test the surface
quality of CD's for correctable and uncorrectable errors. There are a few
other tools too. A good example of a fairly comprehensive set of tests for a
drive/disk at the following site: (example review of a LiteOn DVD-Burner)

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Revi...ArticleId=9221

The methodology and software tools used would be equaly applicable to
testing the disks as well.

Another angle I havn't seen mentioned is that making a copy of a less than
perfect CD can often *improve* the playback quality on many CD players. How
? It's been my experience that good quality CD-R writer drives can read
damaged cd's better than normal CD players can - so much so that in one
particular instance I had a CD that was slightly scratched that had quite
bad noise bursts and a bit of mistracking on one of the songs when played on
most normal CD players, but when copying the CD, the resulting copy played
perfectly without audible problems on the same CD player that had difficulty
with the original disk.

During the copy I could tell the drive was having trouble reading the disk,
and like most writer drives, it will slow right down as slow as 1x speed if
necessary and try several times to extract a piece of bad data. Once the
data is extracted error free, it can then be freshly written to a
non-scratched disk.

Of course the reverse can be true too - if your CD-R writing drive isn't too
hot at reading audio CD's (or is getting a bit old and cranky) it may
introduce read errors into the data stream which can then only be masked by
interpolation, and may result in clicks.

Regards,
Simon

ansermetniac wrote:

The losses are so insignificant you cannot hear it. Unless you are a
pompous ass theoretical douchebag

Abbedd

"Bit for bit" and "insignificant" are not the same thing. Pompous ass
theoretical douchebag, or not.

geoff

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Randy Yates" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" writes:

"David Hallerman" wrote in message
nk.net
Ah, then.

So if the CD-R plays, and there are no aural glitches like those you
mention ("skips, tics, pops, bursts of distortion, drop-outs"), then
the computer-made copy is as good, sonically, as the original
store-bought disc?

Right, the same bits get sent to the DACs with the same exact timing.

So you're saying that if it's a perfect copy then it's a perfect
copy?

Yes.

The phenomenom I haven't seen anyone mention is the following. When
the new disc is read, there may or may not be errors in the raw
bits on the CD. However, there is a lot of forward error correction
on a CD, so depending on how many bit errors there are and where
they are, they may or may not be correctable.

If all errors are correctable by the FEC, then the disc will play
back perfectly, EXACTLY as the original.

Agreed.

If an uncorrectable bit error occurs, the result may or may not
be audible depending on the nature of the error and the masking
that may have been performed by the player.

Agreed.

There may be software out there that can tell you if there are
uncorrectable errors on the copied CD. Try a google.

IME uncorrectable errors are random. Therefore, if you rip the same track
twice, and get consistent results, there were no uncorrectable errors.

Errm, thats flawed reasoning, as it depends on how the ripping/copying
software is configued to behave in the event of "uncorrectable errors". If
its configured to stop on uncorrectable errors, then you'll know about the
error and the copy won't proceed. A lot of software though, is configured by
default to retry a few times, but if it can't read something with
uncorrectable errors then it will interpolate the data in a similar way to a
normal CD player, and this "incorrect" but "near enough" data will be
written to the new CD. In this case the interpolation is likely to be the
same each time, so you'll get a consistent, but wrong result.

It also depends on how truthful the drive itself is about errors. Having
done a lot of ripping in the past, its only been in the last few years that
most drives have been able to extract "bit accurate" data from Redbook Audio
CD tracks, before that it was a pretty hit and miss affair, and the chances
of getting a bit perfect copy of an audio cd that wasn't in pristine
condition were pretty remote. These days with modern drives and software it
is the norm however.

Regards,
Simon

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
If an uncorrectable bit error occurs, the result may or may not
be audible depending on the nature of the error and the masking
that may have been performed by the player.

If there are UNcorrectable errors on the original, the ORIGINAL disk will
play back incorrectly as well.
Good CDR media and burner should add no more.

Use EAC for copying to minimise sync errors.

There may be software out there that can tell you if there are
uncorrectable errors on the copied CD. Try a google.

Yes, you can check C2 errors on the CDR, and also do a file comparison, bit
for bit, against the extracted "original" wave file, and a wave file
extracted from the CDR copy.

In most cases the CDR will be identical to the original when done properly.

TonyP.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Got to be careful with this because alignment within one sample of
nominally
identical files can still lead to instantaneous differences on the order
of
FS. If the files come from the analog domain by separate paths, there is
almost zero chance of perfect alignment.

Aren't we talking about ripping CD's? Where do analog or level errors come
into it?

TonyP.

"Simon Byrnand" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Randy Yates" wrote in message



There may be software out there that can tell you if there are
uncorrectable errors on the copied CD. Try a google.

IME uncorrectable errors are random. Therefore, if you rip the same
track twice, and get consistent results, there were no uncorrectable
errors.

Errm, thats flawed reasoning, as it depends on how the ripping/copying
software is configued to behave in the event of "uncorrectable
errors".

To use a phrase that some find palatable, that's flawed reasoning. A read
error has at least two highly relevant properties:

(1) The actual change in the data due to the error
(2) Which data is changed by the error. IOW, the timing of the error.

Presumably, because of the miniscule size of features in a CD disc, read
errors aren't perfectly consistent. I have observed that the timing of the
error just isn't the same every time you get an unrecoverable error. In
fact, I haven't obtained the identically same erroneous data twice in a row,
even reading the same disc twice in quick succession.

I've done my homework, and looked carefully at a goodly numbers of read
errors at the recovered data level. That's easy to do this with one of the
file comparison programs that I've mentioned. It's even possible to know
exactly what data should be recovered - simply burn a disc of data that you
have on hand.

"TonyP" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Got to be careful with this because alignment within one sample of
nominally identical files can still lead to instantaneous
differences on the order of FS. If the files come from the analog
domain by separate paths, there is almost zero chance of perfect
alignment.

Aren't we talking about ripping CD's?

True, but we were also talking about using subtraction of two data files to
find errors.

Where do analog or level errors come into it?

In the case of extracting audio data from CDs, when you record the analog
output of the CDROM. Not good practice, but its done. In the case of some
copy-protected discs, recording the analog output of a disc player may be
the only available option.

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On 3 Sep 2004 20:53:55 -0700, (Detector195)
wrote:

I have another problem copying CD's. My children have destroyed a
couple of my favorite disks, mainly by badly scratching them. Is there
a technique for polishing out the scratches? Granted, I don't expect
anything to work on tooth marks.

Metal polish. Or the stuff sold for "cutting back" car paintwork.
Toothpaste for the final polish. Or I'm sure hi-fi stores offer tiny
jars of similar at triple price :-)

Please provide some brand names to make it easier
to buy them. Thanks.

Arny,

If the files come from the analog domain by separate paths

Sure, but I was talking only about comparing a digital copy to prove there
was no degradation.

If I may digress a bit, this is a very common theme - someone asks whether
xyz will sound good because they're afraid to trust their own ears. Another
thing I hear often is along the lines of, "I bought an external word clock
[freely substitute some other gear] but I didn't really notice a difference.
It cost a lot of money so I know it's better. Some day when I have better
speakers and more experience I know I'll appreciate the improvement."

I'm convinced that psychological factors account for more than almost
anything else with audio quality. Heck, just look at all the people who
believe cable elevators have improved the sound of their systems! :-)

--Ethan

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 13:32:57 GMT, "Bubba" wrote:

Metal polish. Or the stuff sold for "cutting back" car paintwork.
Toothpaste for the final polish. Or I'm sure hi-fi stores offer tiny
jars of similar at triple price :-)

Please provide some brand names to make it easier
to buy them. Thanks.


In the UK: Brasso. T-Cut. Colgate. But the brands don't matter.
They're all cutting pastes of differing grades.

buffing or polishing compound may do the work. It works on car finish by
microscopically scraping the top layers of one area then dumping it to the
scratched crevices. Heat created by friction plays a role here. If you plan
to use a buffer to polish your CD, be careful not to generate a lot of
friction heat for it may warp the CD media. Buffing it usung your fingers
maybe be a better alternative.

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On 3 Sep 2004 20:53:55 -0700, (Detector195)
wrote:

I have another problem copying CD's. My children have destroyed a
couple of my favorite disks, mainly by badly scratching them. Is there
a technique for polishing out the scratches? Granted, I don't expect
anything to work on tooth marks.

Metal polish. Or the stuff sold for "cutting back" car paintwork.
Toothpaste for the final polish. Or I'm sure hi-fi stores offer tiny
jars of similar at triple price :-)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"TonyP" wrote in message

Aren't we talking about ripping CD's?

True, but we were also talking about using subtraction of two data files
to
find errors.

As long as they are "ripped" not re-recorded, there should be no level
problems.

Where do analog or level errors come into it?

In the case of extracting audio data from CDs, when you record the analog
output of the CDROM. Not good practice, but its done.

If you can play the disk, you can record the digital output.

In the case of some
copy-protected discs, recording the analog output of a disc player may be
the only available option.

I have yet to find that to be the case, even with disks that provide a copy
protection warning on the cover (such as the Beatles Let it Be - Naked)
The only disks I've had problems with are damaged disks, and the problems
were WORSE in a normal audio CD player (and set top DVD player too)

TonyP.

Arny Krueger wrote:


In the case of extracting audio data from CDs, when you record the
analog output of the CDROM. Not good practice, but its done. In the
case of some copy-protected discs, recording the analog output of a
disc player may be the only available option.

Um ,"ripping" implies digital extraction.

geoff

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


In the case of extracting audio data from CDs, when you record the
analog output of the CDROM. Not good practice, but its done. In the
case of some copy-protected discs, recording the analog output of a
disc player may be the only available option.

Um ,"ripping" implies digital extraction.

I would agree with implies, but not necessitates.

The word ripping as meaning transcribing digitally is now part of the
vernacular, and is widely used for many other things.

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 13:32:57 GMT, "Bubba" wrote:

Metal polish. Or the stuff sold for "cutting back" car paintwork.
Toothpaste for the final polish. Or I'm sure hi-fi stores offer tiny
jars of similar at triple price :-)

Please provide some brand names to make it easier
to buy them. Thanks.


In the UK: Brasso. T-Cut. Colgate. But the brands don't matter.
They're all cutting pastes of differing grades.

Those are all pretty abrasive. Novus makes a plastic polish that
is used for finishing surfaces like acrylics and polycarbonates
such as Lexan. It comes in 3 grades from "coarse" (if you can
call it that) to fine and also a plastic cleaner. It is quite
common and many plastic houses use it as well as car repair (e.g.
matting on headlight covers). I had an old AOL disk that was
pretty scraped up. Using the coarse grade by hand it still took a
while to get the scratches down to where they were not noticable.
The finer grades then removed the "haziness" left by the coarser grade.

The coarse grade is finer than toothpaste depending on the brand.
I've seen toothpaste leave a significant haze to the surface so I
wonder if the use of toothpaste is an anecdotal solution repeated
by others who've never really tried it. No accusations here, just
that I've never seen it done where it hasn't left a significant
haze. The Novus can return it to the same smoothness and clarity
as it was originally. However, my personal experience so far
(limited) is that it can take a long time by had to get rid of
even moderate scratches with the coarse Novus by hand. Using a
coarser compnd such as one of those mentioned by the earlier
poster may work well to get the major scratches out quicker and
then use the Novus to finish it.

Remember trying to get scratches out of the plastic cover for
your old turntables? Toothpaste makes it look worse because it
was so coarse. Novus is able to make it as it was, or in the case
of deep scratches, make them far less noticable.

Do a Google on Novus plastic polish (or something like that) and
you will likely find other places on line selling it.

- Jeff

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


In the case of extracting audio data from CDs, when you record the
analog output of the CDROM. Not good practice, but its done. In the
case of some copy-protected discs, recording the analog output of a
disc player may be the only available option.

Um ,"ripping" implies digital extraction.

I would agree with implies, but not necessitates.

The word ripping as meaning transcribing digitally is now part of the
vernacular, and is widely used for many other things.

The term "ripping" in my understanding relates to the crass, fast, and
undignified rapid bulk extraction of music from a CD that involved little
skill on the part of the doer.

geoff

Ethan Winer wrote:

If I may digress a bit, this is a very common theme - someone asks whether
xyz will sound good because they're afraid to trust their own ears. Another

I don't really have a problem with that type of thing at all. How
many times has someone made a major purchase only to find
sometime later that it just wasn't "right" for them and if they
had someone with a lot of experience with those kinds of products
with them when they bought it, that person may have pointed
something out that could have helped them buy something that they
would have eventually discovered to be more "right" for them?
This applies to many different types of product (cars, TVs,
cellphones, etc.). Unfortunately, the experienced person is the
salesman, and although they might have the experience, they
usually have a conflict of interest.

How many folks have had the experience of buying a pair of
speakers because they sounded so "clear" and had such good "bass"
when they first listened to them to discover later that the
clearness was a result of a harsh top end and the bass was due to
an over-emphasis of the bottom end with no control making the
system boomey sounding? It sounded good in the store! After
getting them home and listening for a while, they eventually
start screwing around with their tone controls trying to
eliminate the very aspects which seemed good at the time,
eventually to give up and realize that they really now "hate" the
sound they produce. Having someone who could have pointed those
characteristics out as a caution and provided some comparison to
illustrate it could have made a difference.

The problem of course is who is "expert enough" to help you make
a decision that you won't regret later. It would seem reasonable
to find experienced folks here in this group so why not ask?

I really "trust my own ears" because I've spent many sessions
listening to try and build a system I liked. However, I still
need the input and opinion of other to point out items to me that
may be significant to me in the long run. It's faster than me
trying to find them myself. In the end, I'll still make my own decision.


thing I hear often is along the lines of, "I bought an external word clock
[freely substitute some other gear] but I didn't really notice a difference.
It cost a lot of money so I know it's better. Some day when I have better
speakers and more experience I know I'll appreciate the improvement."


Most seasoned audiophiles do recognize that more money does not
really equal better sound. However, in order to get better sound
(even trusting your ears) you inevitably reach a point where you
must spend more money. "Extreme" e.g., a Mark Levinson 336 and an
pair of Avalon speakers will sound better than your average boom
box in a moderate sized room to almost anyone's ears--but
regardless of how overpriced you may feel the Levison equipment
is priced, there is no way they could sell it for normal boom box
prices. In this case and many similar ones, more money = better
sound. Again though, because of the number of exceptions to this
rule, the assumption mentioned above can be a bad one, even when
dealing with very expensive equipment.

There certainly is the "danger" of buying things that might not
be significant to you but costs a lot of money. The "blind faith"
aspect of this has its risks as you point out. However, from my
own personal experience, I feel that there is some truth here as
well. It is usually much harder to put together a system for a
professional musician than a teenager. Why? Because the musician
has grown over the years to be familiar with all the dynamics,
ranges, and nuances of the music they enjoy. Give them a walkman
and it prevents them from hearing what they want to hear and KNOW
is in the music. That creates frustration which increases the
more they listen to it. As you spend time and gain more
experience with your system, you grow to hear "more" of it. If it
is a poor system, you begin to hear it's flaws more easily. If it
is a "good" system (i.e., a good fit for your liking), it will
minimally be satisfying for a longer period before the desire to
improve it occurs (i.e., when you begin hearing its flaws or
character that doesn't match your liking). Ideally, as you become
familiar with it, you will like it even better. THAT is what I
think most people are aiming for in their purchases

Noone wants to upgrade a component and then later on when they
upgrade another one have to come back and further upgrade the first.


I'm convinced that psychological factors account for more than almost
anything else with audio quality. Heck, just look at all the people who


Yup. It makes sense to me when I consider that my "psychology" is
the part of me where the physics aspect of music in the air and
on the eardrum are converted into impact, pleasure, and escape
for my soul. The "pursuit of happiness" is what we are trying to
purchase so literally we're looking for those things which drive
our psychology. I.e., I want to buy what pushes MY buttons, even
if it IS similar to man in general :-)

This is why the differences between between people's opinions of
"better" can be meaningless in many cases. However there also
seems to be some things in audio that are fairly consistent in
that large numbers of folk like them and search for them. For
example, trying to build a system where the components are each
fairly "neutral" sounding seems to produce systems that can more
easily produce pleasant detail without harshness (probably a
phase coherency thing). More people like tight control on their
bass and not something "boomey". Psychologically, this control
and detail seem to be more "real" and involving letting more of
the true impact of the music reach our psyches. This seems to be
related to several of the common aspects that we seek in audio.


anything else with audio quality. Heck, just look at all the people who
believe cable elevators have improved the sound of their systems! :-)


Believe it or not, it might make a subtle audible difference on
some rare systems. Unfortunately, it's due to poor design of the
amps and preamps rather than the cabling (usually poor tolerance
to RF type influences on inputs which can show up as tiny IM
products in the audio range). Long cables laying on concrete slab
floors in certain specific environments can contribute to ground
loop noise on signal shields throughout the rest of the system.
Unfortunately, although this type of problem is not common at
all, it is sold as though it exists everywhere (and of course the
elevators are quite expensive-all that is necessary is to reduce
the capcitive coupling to ground. Cardboard would work).

- Jeff

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:31:20 GMT, Jeff Wiseman
wrote:

The coarse grade is finer than toothpaste depending on the brand.
I've seen toothpaste leave a significant haze to the surface so I
wonder if the use of toothpaste is an anecdotal solution repeated
by others who've never really tried it. No accusations here, just
that I've never seen it done where it hasn't left a significant
haze.

Nope. I did one last week. Nasty deep scratch in a CD. Brasso
got a lot of it out. Toothpaste polished it up. The "slight haze"
didn't seem to bother the reader, but it could, indeed, have been
taken out with an even finer paste.

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:31:20 GMT, Jeff Wiseman
wrote:

The coarse grade is finer than toothpaste depending on the brand.
I've seen toothpaste leave a significant haze to the surface so I
wonder if the use of toothpaste is an anecdotal solution repeated
by others who've never really tried it. No accusations here, just
that I've never seen it done where it hasn't left a significant
haze.

Nope. I did one last week. Nasty deep scratch in a CD. Brasso
got a lot of it out. Toothpaste polished it up. The "slight haze"
didn't seem to bother the reader, but it could, indeed, have been
taken out with an even finer paste.


Ok, that's good to know since I'm sure it cut faster than the
coarse Novus polish. It sounds as though the "coarse" Novus is
about the same as the toothpaste but the finer ones will remove
all of the haze. I would be careful with the Brasso to keep it
away from the inner and outer edges of the CD. It's solvents may
be capabile of leeching into the inner layer area of the disk and
causing it to start delaminating.

- Jeff