Score differences between burned cd and a prerecorded cd

CD, DVD and (Ultra HD) Blu-ray Writers
#1

Hi! Sorry if this has been covered before. I have just discovered and began doing quality scans using Nero CD Speed. I noticed that I’m able to achieve >98 scores for TY audio cd-rs I’ve burned. However, when I run quality tests on my prerecorded albums, the scores are horrible. 19% max jitter, 25 C2 errors, and 254 C1 errors.

If I rip the same album using EAC secure mode, burn it, and am able to achieve a 98, with low C1, no C2, and low jitter, does this mean the one I burned will be more superior than the prerecorded cd in terms of audio or playback quality?

#2

It has :bigsmile:

I have just discovered and began doing quality scans using Nero CD Speed. I noticed that I’m able to achieve >98 scores for TY audio cd-rs I’ve burned.
LG 4163B?
However, when I run quality tests on my prerecorded albums, the scores are horrible. 19% max jitter, 25 C2 errors, and 254 C1 errors.
Seems as if that pressed CD is scratched, copy protected (yes, some copy protections are based on additional errors) or just of poor quality.

If I rip the same album using EAC secure mode, burn it, and am able to achieve a 98, with low C1, no C2, and low jitter,does this mean the one I burned will be more superior than the prerecorded cd in terms of audio or playback quality?
This depends on the pickyness of your player. As pressed CDs have another reflectivity than CD-R, especially older players can work better with these. On the other side, some players would work better with the copies, if the original is that damaged. You will then have less skips or other disturbing noises.

Michael

#3

Seems as if that pressed CD is scratched, copy protected (yes, some copy protections are based on additional errors) or just of poor quality. [/QUOTE]

Well, with 25 C2 errors and 254 C1 errors I don’t think that it can be a copy-protection. Most probably there are some scratches (maybe only one) on the surface. :iagree:

Regards,

ET

#4

It depends on whether those are [B]peak[/B] vales or [B]total[/B] values.

Given that 254 C1 errors is extremely low, my guess is that those are peak values. That makes it difficult to know whether the disc has deliberate defects a.k.a. “Copy Protection”. An actual quality scan (picture) should be able to tell us that.

In my experience I get better quality scans with high-quality burned CD-R media than with the original pressed CD-DA discs, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the difference is audible.

#5

You’re right, I was assuming that they were the total values. But also in the case of peak values, I still think that the “bad quality pressing” or the presence of scratches are far more likely conjectures that a copy protection kicking in. But I’d like to see the scan of a copyprotected audio CD with those peak levels, if you have one. :slight_smile:
However, as you said only the scan can clear all doubts. :wink:

ET

#6

I’ll see what I can do. :slight_smile:

#7

Hi,

It’s a good thing, my wife has one :bigsmile:
“Rosenstolz - Herz” CDS 200
1st: Benq scan
2nd: Kprobe scan with Liteon SOHR-5239V - scan could not be finished
3rd: Liteon SHM-165P6S (I know, that this is useless as scanner, but the picture is nice)

Yes, this disc needs badly to be repaired, despite it is unscratched :bigsmile:

Rosenstolz-Herz-Benq.png641×524 12 KB

Rosenstolz-Herz-Kprobe-CDRW.PNG572×672 4.55 KB

Rosenstolz-Herz-Litey-DVDRW.png641×524 9.98 KB

#8

These nice errors seem to be designed to prevent users from running EAC in Secure Mode:( In order to be finished before Xmas, burst mode is recommended :wink:

Michael

#9

Thanks for the scan. :flower: I agree, CD Audio Protection are a total crap, and those with mastering errors even worse. :Z
Those are not the levels spotted by the OP, however: max C2 is way higher than 25 apart from the KProbe scan, which is partial (and C1 errors are way lover). I rated “very unlikely” the presence of a copyprotection because a C2 max of 25 is [i]way too low[/I]… in general the situation is much worse, e.g. errors of 200 and more, if not a dramatic abort of the scanning process. :wink:

ET

#10

Hi,

there are different flavours of CDS, maybe the OP has another one with other error relations. We don’t know.
In addition to the scans I posted: The area of high C2 errors match perfectly with the audio part of that disc :wink: The data part is clean from those. Also, the C1 figures from the Benq and the Liteon CDRW (although the scan was aborted) drive match, as the Benq always reports 3-4x higher C1 figures than the Litey :slight_smile:

As confirmed with these scans :iagree:

Michael

#11

Thanks a lot for your efforts on convincing me. :wink:

#12

Thanks for posting those scans, [B]mciahel[/B]. :slight_smile:
I was performing some scans myself, but I got sidetracked because my NEC 4551 seemd to be “learning” how to read the disc after the first scan, and subsequent scans at the same speed showed a much lower error level. This is something I will try to dig further into given time.

The scans I did perform on a NEC 4551 and a Plextor PX-712 looked much like your scans above, but the scan on my BenQ DW1655 showed far fewer C2 (only 586 total, 124 maximum value).

The disc was: Coldplay - X&Y, protected by CDS 200.

#13

Hi,

This would be in accordance to the assumtion that different versions of CDS have different error levels. I’ll look at the version (there is a file in the data section, that contains this information) this evening.

Michael