Burning CD. Logic says...

[Edward]

I sometimes burn downloaded music to CD. 99% of the time the discs read well. If not I just dump that disc and burn at a slower speed. I think my cd/dvd writer costs the grand sum of £10 or so years ago. These days I tend not to burn discs, rather stream directly to my system. When I do burn CDs it is for the car and then I burn in MP3 format (320/16) so I can get many albums on one CD. High res MP3s are great for the car.

When I need to buy blank CDs I get them from Poundland. I use to fret getting the 'best' gold CDs - waste of time.

[Sherwood]

Yes, downloads. Haha.

I think I worded things badly.

Grant, If I buy a download, for argument's same Michael Jackson's Greatest hits, burn it with my crappy player. Then a friend comes round with a factory-burned one he bought from a shop, in the box, with the sleeves etc - we can't tell the difference. Same playback gear, different burn - I use a £15 bit of rubbish and the CD factory has some better I presume

Sorry if my brain is not good today. My pills.

I think you are neglecting the difference in technology between a "pressed" cd and a "burned" cd. Very different processes and equipment involved. Potentially a burned cd has less errors initially but the dyes degrade over time. Personally, I rip my cds when I buy them and put them into storage immediately. I find the sound of an accurately ripped album better.

Geoff

[bobvfr]

A digital copy regardless of cost should have the same information as the original as long as there is built in error checking (Which they would all have) so basically your digital files are just a lot of 1's or zero's the same as on the original digital recording.

So if the original recording is 110011 and your burnt disc is 110011 and not 110101 you are in business.

[Sherwood]

A digital copy regardless of cost should have the same information as the original as long as there is built in error checking (Which they would all have) so basically your digital files are just a lot of 1's or zero's the same as on the original digital recording.

So if the original recording is 110011 and your burnt disc is 110011 and not 110101 you are in business.

In theory you are correct. However, I use dBpoweramp to rip my CDs and the process compares my digital rip to a database of previously ripped CDs. Whilst not common, I do sometimes get ripping errors with new CDs which error correction fails to deal with. Some pressing factories seem to be worse than others.

Geoff

[bobvfr]

You may get ripping errors, but does this change the information, it may have gaps of information but it can't change it ?

It isn't going to turn a bass note into a treble.

So the theory is 100% correct, a successful copy (By download or ripping) must be an identical copy, so the information must be the same.

If you ever find changed information, then the software involved must be wrong.

So as far as the OP is concerned the information must be the same, otherwise we had all better run to the hills because the modern world will collapse sooner than we think ;-)

[Edward]

You may get ripping errors, but does this change the information, it may have gaps of information but it can't change it ?

It isn't going to turn a bass note into a treble.

So the theory is 100% correct, a successful copy (By download or ripping) must be an identical copy, so the information must be the same.

If you ever find changed information, then the software involved must be wrong.

So as far as the OP is concerned the information must be the same, otherwise we had all better run to the hills because the modern world will collapse sooner than we think ;-)

According to my understanding errors may occur due to the laser not being able to read the data correctly (due, for example, to poor CD manufacture) and the ripping software will, instead of aborting the the whole rip, interpolate the data and continue the rip. This will then result in a CRC error check against known correct rips of that CD.

[Sherwood]

According to my understanding errors may occur due to the laser not being able to read the data correctly (due, for example, to poor CD manufacture) and the ripping software will, instead of aborting the the whole rip, interpolate the data and continue the rip. This will then result in a CRC error check against known correct rips of that CD.

Exactly. The errors may not be obviously audible but they are there so that the pressed or burned cd will not be identical to the original master file.

Geoff

[Tim]

It would be wrong to assume a rip is flawed, audibly different to the master or imperfect if it fails a CRC (Cyclic Redundancy Check) error check.

CRC is a method of verifying data integrity but it wasn't invented with audio in mind, it's a method of checking large blocks of data quickly and efficiently, to identify any changes to the raw data, typically across networks.

A ripped CD can fail a CRC against an online database for many reasons, the simplist being differing versions of the same CD pressed at different locations, or different international pressings that contain the same source data, yet all would be considered perfect audibly. Something as simple as a US version and a European version, which contains exactly the same songs can differ when it comes to its raw digital data, but will sound and play identically, yet may fail a CRC.

So to blanketly assume it's an 'error' in its literal sense, poor manufacture or just a bad rip, isn't the full picture and may put some people off or concern them unnecessarily. This quote in particular assumes a fault in the CD and isn't correct ”Some pressing factories seem to be worse than others."

I rip all my CDs and if I get a failed CRC report, I check the rip and if it plays perfectly and sounds OK, then it's fine and doesn't concern me.

Certainly take a failed CRC as in indicator to investigate further, but don't assume it's an error (as in bad), it may just be 'different' in its raw data form which as outlined can be 110011 to 110010 digitally which nobody is going to detect audibly - it could just be the length of silent lead in or lead out data from different pressings. Not bad or an error, just slightly different

Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk

[Macca]

Not sure where logic comes into this. Logically, surely you'd expect the burned cd to sound identical to the 'official' cd. Why wouldn't it?

It is very easy to copy music with digital, and get perfect copies every time. Hence the record company's obsession with copy protection systems and digital rights management.

Was looking to buy a cd the other day, nothing out of the ordinary. Only seller I can find wants forty quid! For that I could buy a cd recorder and a hundred cd-rs and still have change, then find someone who has the cd and just copy it. No value in it at all, really, let alone £40 worth. Very odd.

[Ronksley]

Not sure where logic comes into this. Logically, surely you'd expect the burned cd to sound identical to the 'official' cd. Why wouldn't it?

It is very easy to copy music with digital, and get perfect copies every time. Hence the record company's obsession with copy protection systems and digital rights management.

Was looking to buy a cd the other day, nothing out of the ordinary. Only seller I can find wants forty quid! For that I could buy a cd recorder and a hundred cd-rs and still have change, then find someone who has the cd and just copy it. No value in it at all, really, let alone £40 worth. Very odd.

Some secondhand prices on line are just why too high dont know if people buy at high pirces I hope not

More and more I have been tending towards burning downloads to listen on CDr if I really want to sit down and have a proper listen, this is mainly because my PC is a noisey thing
Thinking I might burn a few for listening over the weekend