Skip to main content

Topic: Review: Best burners for reading/burning audio CDs (Read 407203 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • idankanfi
  • [*]
Re: Review: Best burners for reading/burning audio CDs
Reply #125
Hello to all proffessionals :)
I have an external LG GSA-E10N DVD writer, which is capable of X4-48 speeds in writing CDs.
I ordered some Verbatim music CDs, which are X1-X48 capable.
I burn audio CDs not so often, and hope to get a good result when I do so. My question is: is writing in x4 speed good enough, or should I try to get a writer that can write x1?
I like music a lot, and have a good ear for qualities, like the rest of the guys here I guess :-)

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: Review: Best burners for reading/burning audio CDs
Reply #126
You don't need a good ear to determine if you're having problems that would have been solved by writing at a slower speed.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

  • polemon
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: Review: Best burners for reading/burning audio CDs
Reply #127
We should make a Wiki page about how slower, doesn't mean better.

Hello to all proffessionals :)
I have an external LG GSA-E10N DVD writer, which is capable of X4-48 speeds in writing CDs.
I ordered some Verbatim music CDs, which are X1-X48 capable.
I burn audio CDs not so often, and hope to get a good result when I do so. My question is: is writing in x4 speed good enough, or should I try to get a writer that can write x1?
I like music a lot, and have a good ear for qualities, like the rest of the guys here I guess :-)

If you're worried about an exact digital copy, just check whatever you've recorded. Red Book audio CDs (which I assume what you're referring to) contain Reed-Solomon ECC, small errors do not have an audible effect at all, from the mathematical correct value. When the error is large enough to be audible, or so large that the ECC fails, the CD is either nor playable or the audible artifacts are so huge, they become the prominent feature (very loud squeaking, static, etc)1. Almost all optical recording software offers some sort of checking.

Note that all optical media recorders have an optimal speed, which is almost never at the lower end of the speed band. The mechanics and control electronics are geared such that they cover a relatively large area of the speed-spectrum, which is mainly really just for marketing reasons ("4x-48x" sounds "better" than "30x-40x"). The optimal speed of a recorder, is defined by its block-error-rate, which can be tested, some computer journals used to carry out reviews based on that test. Your "4x-48x" recorder can certainly create optical media within that speed range, but the optimal speed, is in the upper 30's speed factor2. This is also the one speed recorders are tested width at the factory, using a specific disc, with its own speed spectrum.

Now, about recording media. Same thing applies to some extend to record-able optical discs. The substrate is optimized for a specific speed, based on some standard recorder they used to test their discs with. Saying a disc is "1x-48x" means that at "48x" speeds, their substrate is still light sensitive enough to produce a relatively reproducible result. Speed ranges on optical media doesn't make sense at all, all record-able discs start at "0x"3: put a disc into sunlight for a couple hours and see what happens.

There seem to be two fallacies at work here, though I'm not exactly sure were they originate from.
One seems to be coming from the time where recorders were becoming faster and faster, so "faster capable speeds is better". That is a clear case of "bigger is better", in this case referring to the maximum speed. It is in part due to how ever increasing numbers have been used in marketing to sell recorders, etc. An interesting misunderstanding stems from that: quite often, people assumed the maximum numbers must match between media and recorder, in order to be compatible. so when you have a "48x" recorder, you should use media which also has a "48x" printed somewhere on its case.
The other fallacy is I think coming from audiophile narratives, in that recording CDs at a lower speed, improves the copy, or creates a better copy. I guess the mental model is such that if the machine runs at lower speeds, it is possible to be controlled more accurately, the microprocessors have "more time" to adjust the mechanics and henceforth create a more accurate recording - i.e. focusing the laser "better" onto the disc, etc. In practice lower recording speeds are usually just assumed based on a testing speed, but there is a margin. Hence most recorder manufacturers rather play it safe and claim a speed-range of "4x-48x", because they can't be sure at "1x" the recorder will be able to do proper focal control, etc.

If you can detect "quality degradation" between playable and error corrected CD audio streams, your brain is playing tricks on you. If you cannot distinguish static from music, or silence (i.e. a not-playing CD) from music, you have other problems...

  • 1: How error correction is applied to each CDDA frame is described in short here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc_Digital_Audio#Frames_and_timecode_frames
    If the CRC of your data checks out. you're good.
  • 2: Telling the speed of recorders and media as a speed factor is bullshit, IMO. We should tell the speed of something by it's bitrate, at which it is capable of putting data into the disc.
  • 3: The one counter example to that, is called "M-Disc": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-DISC
    It is something I've come across only quite recently (within the last 12 months or so), but I'm not sure it comes in an audio CD format. As far as I know, M-Discs are only available as Blue-Ray variants.

If you can detect "quality degradation" between playable and error corrected CD audio streams, your brain is playing tricks on you. If you cannot distinguish static from music, or silence (i.e. a not-playing CD) from music, you have other problems...

  • bennetng
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Review: Best burners for reading/burning audio CDs
Reply #128
For ripping, I'd suggest buying several inexpensive drives just in case a particular drive and CD combination doesn't work. For example some of the "top drives" in this list:
https://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php?37706-CD-DVD-Drive-Accuracy-List-2016

For burning... sorry, I have no idea why it is necessary to burn any Audio CD in 2017, maybe giving the CD to someone who only have a CD player but have nothing to play a 16/44 audio file?

  • Audible!
  • [*]
Re: Review: Best burners for reading/burning audio CDs
Reply #129
Thanks for linking to spoon's list bennetng; I think it may be time to invest in a Lite-on iHAS124 (#1 on the list) before they discontinue it.
My Samsung DVD-RW is failing, and a $20 replacement (with the highest recorded CD ripping accuracy) will be much superior.
 
Quote from: bennetng
For burning... sorry, I have no idea why it is necessary to burn any Audio CD in 2017, maybe giving the CD to someone who only have a CD player but have nothing to play a 16/44 audio file?
My newly purchased used car only has a standard CD deck, with no line-in, I've been to lazy to replace it, and I'm not always carrying around the music I like on my phone (FM transmitter). As such, I've got a bunch of burned mixes.

  • kode54
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Review: Best burners for reading/burning audio CDs
Reply #130
What about the Lite-on iHBS112? Did it even place anywhere in the full article? Or is it too out of date for consideration?

  • Audible!
  • [*]
Re: Review: Best burners for reading/burning audio CDs
Reply #131
I'm not seeing your Lite-On BD drive in the "complete list" spoon posted in the link, kode, so it may indeed be too out of date.

It is apparently an incredibly fast drive for CD ripping, and the Nero DAE results look excellent, so here's hoping!

  • bennetng
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Review: Best burners for reading/burning audio CDs
Reply #132
Thanks for linking to spoon's list bennetng; I think it may be time to invest in a Lite-on iHAS124 (#1 on the list) before they discontinue it.
My Samsung DVD-RW is failing, and a $20 replacement (with the highest recorded CD ripping accuracy) will be much superior.
I have an iHAS124 "F" purchased in 2015. Don't know if the letter make any significant difference or not but so far so good. However, for such a mature technology I guess it is pretty hard to get a really bad drive.

Quote
My newly purchased used car only has a standard CD deck, with no line-in, I've been to lazy to replace it, and I'm not always carrying around the music I like on my phone (FM transmitter). As such, I've got a bunch of burned mixes.
At least it is a valid reason, unlike those who wanted to write at the slowest speed with some "audiophile" grade blank discs and $$$ CD transport with dedicated external DACs and atomic clocks.