A Audio and hi-fi forum. AudioBanter.com

Go Back   Home » AudioBanter.com forum » rec.audio » Pro Audio
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

CDRW for audiophile quality burning ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 29th 04, 04:17 PM
skler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CDRW for audiophile quality burning ?

Hey,

My Yamaha 8424 CDRW went up in smoke the other day, along with my
P4CPU (ouch) so now I'm looking for a CDRW to replace it.

Unfortunately Yamaha is out of the CDRW business, so I'm starting from
scratch.

The Yamaha drive was superior in quality as compared to the Philips
and Teac drives I have, as well as other generic brands I'd tried &
AB tested. It seems that even when burning at slowest speeds (x1), the
optical accuracy and/or some other aspect of CDRW are critical for
producing audiophile quality. Specifically, the Yamaha was the only
drive I'd used (including DVDRWs) that could translate really great
stereo imaging and could render stereo reverberant fields as good as
on the original wave files or CD.

The kind of transparency and ability to render stereo image is not
something I've ever been able to correlate with manuf. specs (at least
those provided) so test listening is usually in order. My old Sony
PCM was capable of that kind of performance in conjunction with a
really good video format and my old Sony CD player that I paid about
$350 for back in the early 80's was too. I've heard that Marantz CD
players have that kind of quality and there are no doubt lots of folks
who make less common audiphile gear that would qualify. But a CDRW?
I even had a Teac stand alone CD burner about 6 years ago and it
simply couldn't match the audio quality of the Yamaha 8424 for burning
CDs and frankly I'd rather stay away from stand alone burners for a
host of other reasons.

Anyone out there with a critical ear who's noticed knows of a
suitable CDRW for audiophile quality burning? I'd appreciate your
input. :-)


Skler
Austin-T
Ads
  #2  
Old September 29th 04, 04:46 PM
Scott Dorsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

skler > wrote:
>
>My Yamaha 8424 CDRW went up in smoke the other day, along with my
>P4CPU (ouch) so now I'm looking for a CDRW to replace it.
>
>Unfortunately Yamaha is out of the CDRW business, so I'm starting from
>scratch.


Why CDRW? What is wrong with standard CDR?

>The Yamaha drive was superior in quality as compared to the Philips
>and Teac drives I have, as well as other generic brands I'd tried &
>AB tested. It seems that even when burning at slowest speeds (x1), the
>optical accuracy and/or some other aspect of CDRW are critical for
>producing audiophile quality. Specifically, the Yamaha was the only
>drive I'd used (including DVDRWs) that could translate really great
>stereo imaging and could render stereo reverberant fields as good as
>on the original wave files or CD.


If you are noticing this sort of difference between burners, I would start
looking at your playback system. The better your playback system is able
to deal with errors and phase shift on the clock, the less you will have to
worry about the quality of the original disc.

>The kind of transparency and ability to render stereo image is not
>something I've ever been able to correlate with manuf. specs (at least
>those provided) so test listening is usually in order. My old Sony
>PCM was capable of that kind of performance in conjunction with a
>really good video format and my old Sony CD player that I paid about
>$350 for back in the early 80's was too. I've heard that Marantz CD
>players have that kind of quality and there are no doubt lots of folks
>who make less common audiphile gear that would qualify. But a CDRW?
>I even had a Teac stand alone CD burner about 6 years ago and it
>simply couldn't match the audio quality of the Yamaha 8424 for burning
>CDs and frankly I'd rather stay away from stand alone burners for a
>host of other reasons.


I suggest that you look at the Plextor drives, if only because they allow you
to actually measure the error rates. This gives you the ability to select a
burn rate and blank brand which will give you the lowest possible errors, and
this will translate more into better sound quality than anything else.

>Anyone out there with a critical ear who's noticed knows of a
>suitable CDRW for audiophile quality burning? I'd appreciate your
>input. :-)


Since the CDRW is going to have a higher error rate than a stock CD-R,
why are you using it over CD-R if you care about sound quality?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #3  
Old September 29th 04, 04:46 PM
Scott Dorsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

skler > wrote:
>
>My Yamaha 8424 CDRW went up in smoke the other day, along with my
>P4CPU (ouch) so now I'm looking for a CDRW to replace it.
>
>Unfortunately Yamaha is out of the CDRW business, so I'm starting from
>scratch.


Why CDRW? What is wrong with standard CDR?

>The Yamaha drive was superior in quality as compared to the Philips
>and Teac drives I have, as well as other generic brands I'd tried &
>AB tested. It seems that even when burning at slowest speeds (x1), the
>optical accuracy and/or some other aspect of CDRW are critical for
>producing audiophile quality. Specifically, the Yamaha was the only
>drive I'd used (including DVDRWs) that could translate really great
>stereo imaging and could render stereo reverberant fields as good as
>on the original wave files or CD.


If you are noticing this sort of difference between burners, I would start
looking at your playback system. The better your playback system is able
to deal with errors and phase shift on the clock, the less you will have to
worry about the quality of the original disc.

>The kind of transparency and ability to render stereo image is not
>something I've ever been able to correlate with manuf. specs (at least
>those provided) so test listening is usually in order. My old Sony
>PCM was capable of that kind of performance in conjunction with a
>really good video format and my old Sony CD player that I paid about
>$350 for back in the early 80's was too. I've heard that Marantz CD
>players have that kind of quality and there are no doubt lots of folks
>who make less common audiphile gear that would qualify. But a CDRW?
>I even had a Teac stand alone CD burner about 6 years ago and it
>simply couldn't match the audio quality of the Yamaha 8424 for burning
>CDs and frankly I'd rather stay away from stand alone burners for a
>host of other reasons.


I suggest that you look at the Plextor drives, if only because they allow you
to actually measure the error rates. This gives you the ability to select a
burn rate and blank brand which will give you the lowest possible errors, and
this will translate more into better sound quality than anything else.

>Anyone out there with a critical ear who's noticed knows of a
>suitable CDRW for audiophile quality burning? I'd appreciate your
>input. :-)


Since the CDRW is going to have a higher error rate than a stock CD-R,
why are you using it over CD-R if you care about sound quality?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #4  
Old September 29th 04, 05:58 PM
Codifus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scott Dorsey wrote:


>
> Since the CDRW is going to have a higher error rate than a stock CD-R,
> why are you using it over CD-R if you care about sound quality?
> --scott


Now THAT is the question

CDRWs should be used for computer data, not for serious audio. Besides,
at 30-50 cents a pop, CDRs are way cheaper than blank cassettes.

CD
  #5  
Old September 29th 04, 05:58 PM
Codifus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scott Dorsey wrote:


>
> Since the CDRW is going to have a higher error rate than a stock CD-R,
> why are you using it over CD-R if you care about sound quality?
> --scott


Now THAT is the question

CDRWs should be used for computer data, not for serious audio. Besides,
at 30-50 cents a pop, CDRs are way cheaper than blank cassettes.

CD
  #6  
Old September 29th 04, 06:51 PM
Arny Krueger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> skler > wrote:
>>
>> My Yamaha 8424 CDRW went up in smoke the other day, along with my
>> P4CPU (ouch) so now I'm looking for a CDRW to replace it.
>>
>> Unfortunately Yamaha is out of the CDRW business, so I'm starting
>> from scratch.

>
> Why CDRW? What is wrong with standard CDR?


They dropped those, too.

http://www.yamaha.co.jp/english/product/computer/

If you want a computer drive that burns CDs and has the Yamaha logo on it,
you either get some NOS, or move on to a DVD burner.



  #7  
Old September 29th 04, 06:51 PM
Arny Krueger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> skler > wrote:
>>
>> My Yamaha 8424 CDRW went up in smoke the other day, along with my
>> P4CPU (ouch) so now I'm looking for a CDRW to replace it.
>>
>> Unfortunately Yamaha is out of the CDRW business, so I'm starting
>> from scratch.

>
> Why CDRW? What is wrong with standard CDR?


They dropped those, too.

http://www.yamaha.co.jp/english/product/computer/

If you want a computer drive that burns CDs and has the Yamaha logo on it,
you either get some NOS, or move on to a DVD burner.



  #8  
Old September 30th 04, 04:52 PM
Codifus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

G. Louie wrote:

> In article >,
> Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>
>>Since the CDRW is going to have a higher error rate than a stock CD-R,
>>why are you using it over CD-R if you care about sound quality?

>
>
> In one case, I've found the opposite to be true. I tried TDK CDRWs at 1X
> in a new HHB CDR830, and a used Sony CDRW33, error checking them on a
> Clover Systems CDX error rate analyzer. Both tests showed the lowest,
> cleanest error rates that I have ever seen from any CDR burn, at any
> speed, cyanine or pthalocyanine. Both recorders made pretty poor CDRs (1X,
> various name brand cyanine or Mitsui gold pthalocyanine) from an error
> rate standpoint, but most all CD players tended to play the CDRs anyway
> without obvious choking.
>
> This was surprising enough that I really have to make some more tests to
> verify this.

So your experince says that CDRWs make the most error free copies but
CDRs still tend to be the most readable or playable? Odd. What a
technically confusing world we live in.

CD
  #9  
Old September 30th 04, 04:52 PM
Codifus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

G. Louie wrote:

> In article >,
> Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>
>>Since the CDRW is going to have a higher error rate than a stock CD-R,
>>why are you using it over CD-R if you care about sound quality?

>
>
> In one case, I've found the opposite to be true. I tried TDK CDRWs at 1X
> in a new HHB CDR830, and a used Sony CDRW33, error checking them on a
> Clover Systems CDX error rate analyzer. Both tests showed the lowest,
> cleanest error rates that I have ever seen from any CDR burn, at any
> speed, cyanine or pthalocyanine. Both recorders made pretty poor CDRs (1X,
> various name brand cyanine or Mitsui gold pthalocyanine) from an error
> rate standpoint, but most all CD players tended to play the CDRs anyway
> without obvious choking.
>
> This was surprising enough that I really have to make some more tests to
> verify this.

So your experince says that CDRWs make the most error free copies but
CDRs still tend to be the most readable or playable? Odd. What a
technically confusing world we live in.

CD
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"CD Quality" MP3 Andy Fish General 2 May 5th 04 01:29 PM
Napster, Rhapsody, etc. - Audio quality good enough? Bill Adams General 0 March 13th 04 03:53 PM
Help! Looking for a quality system with alarm/sleep timer capabilities. Kim Buttleman General 0 February 19th 04 07:58 PM
Audio amplifier design trivial? John Atkinson Audio Opinions 166 November 14th 03 07:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.