Acceptable errors (again)

Hello, I might be posting in the wrong area but iItook the time to search threads and topics without finding a definitive answer to my question.
I am presently using a Sony CRX230AE CD-R/RW with Nero CD Speed. The software seems compatible as I get fairly consistent read/results when comparing the “disc quality” and “scandisc” functions.
I would like to know if there is a definite C1 error rate (Maximum/Average) beyond which a disc should be reburned if archiving. I personally feel any C2 errors are unacceptable (unless they occur at the very beginning or end of a burn or between sessinons).
I know this question has been hashed around a lot so maybe that is why I can’t find a consensus. Any knowledgeable help would be greatly appreciated.
Also, any recommendations on computer burners that would rival or beat my standalone Pioneer PDR 509 recorder? I have yet to hear a computer burnt disc that sounds as good on a high end sound system. I hope I haven’t broken any rules or protocol by making this a new post but I am brand new and this is my first post. Thanks for this great forum, I look forward to learning and contributing. Rediredts to previously existing threads would be great if they address these issues spicifically. :cool:

Thread moved to the Media Testing/Identifying Software forum. The CD Freaks Forum Talk forum you had this thread located is intended for discussion about forum related issues, such as problems accessing certain threads, forum bugs & suggestions, posting issues and so on. :wink:

Hi and welcome.

As any drive you are using for scanning, reports errors in a different way (my Benq DW 1650 reports C1 errors triple as high as my Liteon CD/RW reports them), there are no absolute figures. The people that write reviews for CDF mostly use Liteon CD/RW drives. Their scale is like this:

A good disc should not contain any C2 errors, and preferably have an average C1 error amount of below 2.0 for the best discs, or at least below 10.0 averages for good quality discs.

I personally feel any C2 errors are unacceptable (unless they occur at the very beginning or end of a burn or between sessinons).
They are also unacceptable then.

Also, any recommendations on computer burners that would rival or beat my standalone Pioneer PDR 509 recorder? I have yet to hear a computer burnt disc that sounds as good on a high end sound system.
If you hear a difference between the copy and the original, then there is something really wrong with your drive and your media. Liteon drives often produce rather high jitter, the jitter level also depends on the media you are using.
I get best results with my LG 4163B and Verbatim Pastel discs, written at 24x.

Another thing is, if you compare recordings done by your Pioneer HiFi-equipment and by a computer. In that case, it is the quality of the audio components (sound card) and the skill of the person who does the recording, that matters. The CD-writer, that is used is really unimportant in that case (unless crappy drive and media are used).

The screenshots attached show two discs, scanned with my Liteon CD/RW at 40x speed. First one is the original pressed disc, the second one is the copy, done on the LG 4163B at 24x using 52x rated Verbatim Pastel CD-R

Michael



And even the jitter is lower on the copy. Same discs as above, scanned with Benq DW-1650 at 40x:



I might be wrong but it is not hard to understand why a copy would show less errors than an original. As you rip the information your drive is using error correction and passing on corrected information to be written to the copy. Standalone burners receive and write DSD information in real time (no Image).As far as I know results such as the ones you presented do not tell what information or how accurate the information is compared to the original. i.e. how many bits of information compared to original audio file. Again, I may be wrong, but at high volumes on a good sound system computer burnt discs have never sounded as good as the standalone ones. I realize the need for compatitbilty between units and discs. (As well as dye types ets.) Thanks for your reply when I figure out how to attach images I’ll post some results.

:disagree: - niet my friend. What we see in scans are not data errors, but low-level reading errors. :wink: - these are either corrected entirely (which is always the case with C1) and the data is intact, or can’t be corrected (with high amounts of C2 in some readers) and the data can’t be retrieved.

This means that the amount of these C1 errors (and the jitter amount) that we see in scans have absolutely nothing to do with the data itself and any ‘correction’ applied to it, but entirely with the burning quality and the media itself. Oh and of course with the quality of the reader used to perform the scan, but this is beyond the point.

And what is transferred from a media to another? The data, and [I]only[/I] the data. There is no magic ‘error correction system’ to lower the reading BLER during the transfer from a media to another. This is mere nonsense.

In this case the copy is ‘better’ than the original simply because it’s been burnt in better conditions (better burner) on good media. The data itself is exactly the same in both cases.

If you find it difficult to understand this explanation, I’ll try and make some more efforts to make it clearer (if you ask nicely :wink: )

*Sidenote: I’m impressed with the CD burning quality of your LG, [B]mciahel [/B] :cool:

Hi,

No. It is the original data, that is written on the disc.

Standalone burners receive and write DSD information in real time (no Image).
They write at 1x speed. That’s all. For a fair comparison, you’ll have to assume this scenario:
There is a “black box” providing your audio signal at the connectors. Let’s assume, this is an analog signal. This is the “original” signal. If you connect your standalone, then its filters and ADCs determine the digital signal. Of course, this is different to that what you consider “original” (there is no original file) due to signal processing and converting. The digital signal is buffered and then written at 1x on the media.
Same with the computer: The signal processing is basically determined by the soundcard, but also the rest of the hardware is involved. And not to forget software. After “recording” and digitizing the digital data are buffered and written at 1x to the harddisk.
Until here, there is no basic difference to the standalone recorder. If the digital output of standalone differ from that of the computer, then this is due to the quality of the components used. With top quality components on the computer, the results may be better than those gained with some standalones.
Last step on the computer is copying (this is always 1:1 without altering of the data) the digital audio data to CD-media. At that stage things can get worse if the drive and/or the media are not of good quality. But it is proven, that excellent (better than factory pressed) can be achieved using the right writer and top quality media.
Copying a disc that was recorded using a standalone on a computer is the same as before.

Again, I may be wrong, but at high volumes on a good sound system computer burnt discs have never sounded as good as the standalone ones.
If that occurs, then there was something wrong with the burned disc or the player has problems reading writeable media.

Thanks for your reply when I figure out how to attach images I’ll post some results.
I look forward to that. For attaching images, click “Go Advanced” and use the “Manage Attachments” button. Preferred image format is .PNG as that is the best quality with lowest file size.

Michael

Yes, the LG isn’t that bad with this media :bigsmile: Will see, if the 4082 in my wife’s computer does similar, and hopefully I have the opportunity to check the capabilities of a 4167 this weekend :slight_smile:

Michael

:doh: “This is mere nonsense.” Soooooorry!
I have preceded my posts with " I might be wrong but" on each occasion. I claim no expertise in any of these areas. I do trust my ears however. My origianl post was to try to find out what is considered to be the best, (or one of the best) computer cd audio burners. Assume I am using EAC, good burning software and Taiyo Yuden or Mitsui discs. If there is no difference between them why are some burners $30 and others $200.?
A friend with a $20,000 sound system said he had never heard a computer burnt disc that sounded as good as one he heard from the standalone recorder. He made the comment about this particular disc before he knew it was burnt on a standalone. I also hear more distortion (or whatever you want to call it) at high volume levels with computer burnt discs. (Although my system cost far less). If I didn’t believe it might be possible to achieve the same results I wouldn’t be asking any of these questions. Thanks for your reply but it still doesn’t address the issue. As far as understanding how all this technology works I admit I have a great deal to learn. When a burner is “reading” a pressed CD and passing on the data it is easy to understand why the result might be better. The information was read, (with however much read correction necessary) passed on and burnt to new media. A good burner, compatible media and an as close to perfect read/write seem to be what is needed in the equation. What are considered the best five burners (if it can’t be narrowed down any further) in this equation? I hope this is “nice” enough and doesn’t come across as “mere (sheer?) nonsense”.
P.S. I never get a jitter read with Nero cd speed. Is it likely my Sony doesn’t report jitter? I hope the attachments are intact. I can’t seem to preview them but they appeared to upload :doh:




Michael, thanks for your informative (and polite) reply. When I use the standalone I use an optical connection so there is no converting as far as I know. I realize a buffer is necessary but that’s it. Also, I have read siomewhere in these posts that the sound card has nothing to do with ripping and burning discs. This made sense to me as all that is happening is passing on 1’s and 0’s to an image that is then burnt. Can you clarify this? Thanks again.

Sorry iscrewed up the result images by not inclluding the file extension!

[OT]
@[B]hellenback[/B]: my sentence about the nonsense was a simple assertion, not an accusation or a judgment of your knowledge or anything of the sort. Put differently, it was nothing personal.
[/OT]

The best dedicated CDR burners are probably the Plextor ones. With DVD burners, you can get excellent results with LG (4163 and newer) and NEC (3540 and newer) drives. I’m referring to low (<8%) and constant jitter, not only low C1. My favourite drive to burn CDs is the NEC 4550 DVD burner, but when I see [B]mciahel[/B]'s scans above, I can tell his LG is just as good.

Jitter is reported only by Benq and Plextor drives (AFAIK). Plextor testing is more thorough in this area.

Hi,

Should I really answer to that?

My origianl post was to try to find out what is considered to be the best, (or one of the best) computer cd audio burners. Assume I am using EAC, good burning software and Taiyo Yuden or Mitsui discs. If there is no difference between them why are some burners $30 and others $200.?
There are indeed differences. Some drives are really mediocre in quality, some others are pricey due to marketing :stuck_out_tongue:
The difference in writing quality of CD-burners are due to the write strategy stored in the drive’s firmware, to the mechanical precision of discs and the writer, and also to the chipset that is used in the drive. These things cause higher error rates and jitter (and this is, what might be audible). Your Sony branded Liteon isn’t the best concerning jitter.

What are considered the best five burners (if it can’t be narrowed down any further) in this equation?
Perhaps Plex Premium II, I would also count my LG 4163B to that, and there seem also some NEC writers, that are good at audio. Francksoy already mentioned some drives.

P.S. I never get a jitter read with Nero cd speed. Is it likely my Sony doesn’t report jitter?
You would need a Benq DVD writer (1640, 1650 or 1655) to do so.
I hope the attachments are intact. I can’t seem to preview them but they appeared to upload :doh:
The first two (what is what? I also don’t see the write parameters :rolleyes: ) are okay, the others were not. Did you forget the file extension?

When I use the standalone I use an optical connection so there is no converting as far as I know. I realize a buffer is necessary but that’s it. Also, I have read siomewhere in these posts that the sound card has nothing to do with ripping and burning discs. This made sense to me as all that is happening is passing on 1’s and 0’s to an image that is then burnt. Can you clarify this?
I’ll try that. In the model I described, I did the same with the computer, as you would do with a standalone recorder. Getting a signal (it does not matter if digital or analog inputs are used, as there is always some signal processing). If these parts are of same quality (compared standalone and computer), the data at the writing interface are the same. Possibly there might be some distortion due to the media in the case of the standalone compared to the HDD of the computer, but this can be neglected here.
Ripping a CD to the HDD (that indeed has nothing to do with a soundcard installed) is something different as recording with a standalone HiFi recorder. A pricey standalone recorder might indeed have high quality mechanical components, possibly made of metal instead of cheap plastics material as used in computer drives. This, paired with low writing speeds and optimized media will allow to achieve high accuracy of the laser’s position relative to the disc resulting in low jitter levels you wont achieve with any Liteon drive. :stuck_out_tongue:

EDIT: Some comment about the two screenshots you posted.
I just calculated the relation (C1 total)/(length of the data area) for both.
In pic #1 this relation is 683/77=8,9 C1 errors/min
In pic #2 this relation is 360/45,25=8,0 C1 errors/min
A variance of 10% has to be accepted due to media variation and reproducibility of the error scans. So it seems, the difference concerning errors can be neglegted here. If something can be heard, then this will be probably due to jitter.

Michael

Attachment: 52x rated TY CD-R written in Liteon SOHR-5239V at 12x (lowest speed available), Scanned with CD/DVD Speed using Benq DW 1650 at 40x (1st pic) and with Kprobe using Liteon SOHR-5239V.
Comment: I have seen better results with that media and this writer, possibly due to the fact, that these discs are optimized for higher speeds.
The jitter peak at 20 Min position can be considered as artifact due to the reading methods of the Benq.



Fixed the attachment problem in [B]hellenback[/B]'s post #9 above. :wink:

On the disc I wrote, there is a relation of 705/78,25=9,0 C1 errors/min

Michael

mciahel, The soooorry! comment wasn’t meant for you! ( You are probably aware of this by now .) It was in reponse to Francksoy who wote the “mere nonsense” comment. I needn’t be so sensitive and apologize to Francksoy.
I greatly appreciate the time you have both taken to educate me on the matters I inquired about. I will go and price some of the recommended burners.
Is there any advantage to getting a good dedicated cd burner as opposed to a DVD burner? I realize the capacity and cost issues but I mostly make single copys of my store bought CDs. (Hence the standalone with it’s built in SCMS and copyright royalty on the discs to keep on the legal side of things.) I don’t do any video stuff yet and may never. Music is my passion and I want the best replication possible. I simply don’t want to hear ANY difference between the original and the copy and want the copies to last as long as possible. I look forward to learning in this forum and sharing more as I become more knowledgeable. Thanks again to both of you.

Hi,

okay.

Is there any advantage to getting a good dedicated cd burner as opposed to a DVD burner?
There is a problem. There are not many dedicated CD burners available on the market. As I remember, there are some Liteons, LG, and Benq (and possibly few others) drives. As you already own a Liteon (Sony branded), you can remove that from your list. Unfortunately, there aren’t any serious reviews of current CDRW drives, because of anybody wanting DVD writers :frowning: And there are indeed some DVD writers, that are excellent CD writers, too.
I know the limits of my Liteon drive, and if I want really good audio CD, then I will use my LG DVDRW drive (and even this is outdated, I don’t know how good its successors are).

Music is my passion and I want the best replication possible. I simply don’t want to hear ANY difference between the original and the copy and want the copies to last as long as possible.
Have a look at the thread about Plextor’s new Premium II CDRW drive over there in the Plextor section. Maybe this drive it that you want.
Also have a look at Plextor 755 and 760. Both are DVDRW drives, but have reportedly good audio CD capabilities.

Michael

Music is my passion and I want the best replication possible. I simply don’t want to hear ANY difference between the original and the copy and want the copies to last as long as possible.
CD specifications set 220 frame/sec averaged over 10 seconds for max C1 errors and no CU as the allowable error rates. However, since C1/C2/CU error rates vary widely with the scanning drives, the standard for C1 errors may need adjustment accordingly.

Pay more attention to jitter instead of C1 errors, as jitter is the most important determinant of the sound quality of music CD. Unless too high, C1 errors play little role in most cases, as they will be corrected.

Also, any recommendations on computer burners that would rival or beat my standalone Pioneer PDR 509 recorder? I have yet to hear a computer burnt disc that sounds as good on a high end sound system.
Your Sony CRX230AE may be good enough, though you need to do some tests to find the most suitable conditions (firmware/speed) for best results. According to the reviews by CDRInfo, ASUS 5232A-T is also an excellent CD writer, better than most current DVD writers for that sake.

For longevity, it’s mainly down to the media. The usual suspects are still best for longevity: TY (Plextor, unbranded, Verbatim pastels), MCC crystal AZO (Verbatim), Hitachi-Maxell (hard to find and Maxell-branded CDRs are now mainly Ritek media, except for their “Pro” line that is excellent according to Dolphinius-Rex - but rather expensive).

For the sound. mmh… sorry but I’m among those who think that hearing a difference between different burns/media is psychological.
Of course if there is a fair amount C2 errors, this is clearly audible if your ear is delicate, and lots of C2 errors will be heard by almost anyone.

The only thing I can personally hear, in terms of burning/media quality (assuming all discs have no C2 errors at all), is very high jitter (>20%) when playing in a low-end CD player, that’s about all. In very good CD players, I hear no difference at all. And I’m a sound engineer and a musician… :wink:
I know lots of guys around will swear they hear huge differences between different blanks, but all randomised double-blind studies have shown that these differences are, suddenly, not heard anymore when people don’t know what disc they’re listening to. … :bigsmile:

What’s far more important than this, IMO, is to rip the original CD [I]with EAC [/I] (Exact Audio Copy), [I]using a drive that can report C2[/I]: NEC, Plextor, LiteOn (BEnq drives kinda report C2 but they don’t report in a standard way so it’s useless with EAC), with the appropriate settings. If the original CD is not pristine, that’s the only way to be 100% sure that the audio is 100% the same. Then burn with a good burner on good media, limit your writing speed to 12X or 16X, and you’re good. :cool:

:iagree: The reason why I don’t recommend Benq burners for audio. Very low C1, but rather high jitter.

merged with post above