Data CD-R vs Music CD-R

[Rich86]

As for 320 kbit/s MP3, unless there is a problem during the encoding, it is transparent with the source. I don't care how good your ears are, if you are human, you won't be able to tell the difference.

You are kidding right? While I generally agree that 320K recorded MP3s sound fine, there is a distinct difference between the original CD and the ripped(320K) MP3 version.

At last - a post from ROF in this thread that actually makes some sense and has some factual basis . . . .

[RLT69]

A little reserch goes a long way people.....Straight for the horses mouth the cdr faq:

http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq07.html#S7-17

Subject: [7-17] What's the difference between "data" and "music" blanks?
(2003/01/13)

"Consumer" stand-alone audio CD recorders require special blanks. See section (5-12) for details. There is no difference in quality or composition between "data" blanks and "music" blanks, except for a flag that indicates which one it is. It's likely that "music" blanks are optimized for recording at 1x, since anything you record "live" is by definition recorded at 1x (though some dual-drive systems allow track copying at higher speeds).

You don't have to use "music" blanks to record music on a computer or on a "professional" stand-alone audio CD recorder. Nothing will prevent you from doing so, but there's no advantage to it.

The "music" blanks are more expensive than the "data" blanks because a portion of the price goes to the music industry. The specifics vary from country to country. In the USA, the money goes to the RIAA, which distributes it to artists who have navigated through a complicated application process.

Some manufacturers have on occasion marked low-quality data discs as being "for music", on the assumption that small errors will go unnoticed. Make sure that, if you need the special blanks, you're getting the right thing.

(Technically, there are actually three kinds of blanks: type 1a for CD-ROM or professional audio recording, type 1b for special-purpose applications like PhotoCD, and type 2 for unrestricted use. "Music" blanks are type 2, "data" blanks are type 1a.)

Some disc manufacturers label "music" blanks as "universal use", since they will work on anything.

You'd think people would know this buy now.

[piano632]

Sorry, but I have to agree with ROF on this one (well, sort of). I don't think it really has anything to do with whether a CD-R is made for data or for music, but rather the quality of the manufacturing. Some "audio" CD-R's might be made to a bit higher manufacturing standards which might account for any difference in sound quality. However, with a top-quality brand like Mitsui/MAM-A discs, I can hear no difference at all between their data CD-R and Audio CD-R. In most cases however, I can hear differences between different brands of CD-R and different burn speeds.

Everyone likes to think that in the digital realm - bits is bits and if the bits don't change then the sound can't change. Well, I don't think so. And a bunch of mastering people don't think so. Every cable you send a digital signal through affects digital sound even if the bits stay the same. I found this out when I exchanged the standard ribbon cables inside my computer for round shielded/grounded cables which made CD-R's sound significantly better.

Read this, you people who think all digital sounds alike:
http://www.johnvestman.com/digital_myth.htm

[ROF]

Everyone likes to think that in the digital realm - bits is bits and if the bits don't change then the sound can't change. Well, I don't think so. And a bunch of mastering people don't think so.

I don't think so either. But you have to forgive some people. They weren't taught any better. Rather than offer something worthy on a topic they'd rather troll it(see above).

[Cornucopia]

I'd like to say "Complete and utter BULLSHIT!", but that's probably a little too strong. But people, please don't get caught up in this anti-intellectual, non-scientific VOODOO.

piano632, that mastering guy that you mentioned lifted most of his info off of the Digital Domain website http://www.digido.com/, but he got alot of the buzzwords down without realizing the science behind it and so made some bad assumptions (a thorough scientific reading of the original site would clear some of that up)...

#1-Jitter: Jitter can be created only in the Analog-to-Digital or Digital-to-Analog stages. It can be "multiplied" or compounded temporarily in an all-digital transferring (cable) or all-digital mixing stage--especially if mixing different sample rates, but this is really wiped away when next stored to tape/disc/CD. So all that really matters is the clock. The quality of the clock in A-to-D will determine the quality of the sound from then on. That's why high quality A-to-D is so important. The quality of the D-to-A clock is also somewhat important, but this can be easily changed by swapping out players/soundcards, etc. Neither has anything to do with how it's stored on CD. In that regard, bits is bits. That leads us to...

#2-Bit Errors: AudioCD's have 2 layers of error correction, while CDroms have 3. This difference shows up in the # of uncorrectable errors (much higher on AudioCD). However, most people don't really NOTICE the errors, because when there are errors the player will mute/interpolate. This is perceived as a "closed" or "mushier" sound, but that's it. So, whatever difference between "MusicCD" and "DataCD" could very well have to do with their BLER rate. If both have very low BLER (very difficult to get zero), then playback will be IDENTICAL on each. If "MusicCD"s have lower BLER than "DataCD"s at the rated burn speed, then while the MusicCD may play clearly, the DataCD might have error interpolation happening in the background, and will play "degraded". This all comes down to quality of burner/media combination, as well as paying attention to optimal burn speeds for particular media.
As was noted before, the Yamaha Audio Mastering burn type has wider pit and buffer spacing, so playback devices have a MUCH easier time of correctly reading the bits. Less error correction = less "mushiness". Simple. Mainly because here in CD playback land, final output bits (after error correction attempts) may not be the same as input bits (as recorded on the disc). I have a Yamaha F1 burner myself so I can attest to experiment examples that will show how MusicCD and DataCD media, burned at 8x using AudioMastering burntype are basically identical bit-for-bit in output, whereas standard Audio burning will vary by a much greater margin, depending in media brand/formulation.

#3-"Recalculation Errors" If you use crap software that don't use high bitdepth math (=>24bit or floatingpoint 32 or 64bit) and/or don't use proper DITHER in the final rounding back down to the stored bitdepth, then OF COURSE you're going to have successive stages of degradation of the signal when doing processing (of any kind). That's why almost ALL good quality moder DAW software has accounted for this and so you should not consider this a factor anymore. DAW's are WAY beyond most peoples perception of high quality these days.

#4- DAT mistracking. For those people who actually still use DAT for mastering (I pity them), this could be a problem, but this would give an ERROR of a noticeable and recognizeable sort. This has nothing to do with CD burns or burn quality or Digital vs. Digital comparisons. Also, the mastering guy doesn't even correctly understand DAT's. There's Audio DAT tapes, and there's Data DAT tapes (like DLT backup drives). He's confusing one (Data "files") with the other (Audio "tracks" and "indexes"). They don't work the same way or anything.

#5- Burn speeds. Simply, different media is optimized for different burn speeds. At that "optimal" speed is probably the lowest BLER rating. This is where you should burn. "MusicCD" media may be optimized for lower burn speeds (makes sense) and "DataCD" media is usually these days optimized for the higher/highest burn speeds. Nothing new here. Use what's most appropriate. So you get little to no ERRORs. The difference, once again, is in the amount and type of (or need for) error correction.

AFA error correction, here's a little test you can do that might clear up your mistaken confusion:

Get some "MusicCD" media and some "DataCD" media of high quality.
Rip one of your favorite personal (pressed AudioCD) tracks to WAVE (16bit, stereo, LPCM, 44100Hz) file.
Check it on you computer to make sure it sounds good like you would expect it to sound.
Then, burn a CDROM Data Mode1 disc of this WAVE file using one of each of the MusicCD and DataCD media types.
Play them and the original in your computer drive. The 2 burned discs should sound the same (and hopefully will be the same as the pressed original).
Copy those files back to the computer.
Now, you have Track1_MusicCD.wav, Track1_DataCD.wav, and Track1_OriginalRip.wav. They will ALL sound the same, and they will all be bit-for-bit identical. If they weren't, you would have gotten an error message when copying the file.
The difference here is because of the additional error protection of Mode1 vs. AudioCD.

But it's true...

But you have to forgive some people. They weren't taught any better.

Scott

[Rich86]

"bits are bits and the sound doesn't change" - this is a true statement.

Of course there are all sorts of other things that can effect the sound, like read errors forcing equipment into error correction routines where it plugs in a "best guess", and especially any analog sections of the path from those "bits" to someones ears. Last but not least is human hearing and perceptions going on in the brain.

But - none of this has anything to do with data vs. music cd-r's. The only inherent difference between these is a code on the media so the music industry can pick our pockets for some extra money because they convinced government that the introduction of cd recorders was going to spell the end of the music industry.

But if folks want to delude themselves into thinking the exact same digital bit stream accurately played back somehow sounds better on a piece of optical media just because they paid an extra tax to buy it when it was blank - well - by all means enjoy.

[vitualis]

As per others.

Digital is digital is digital. The CD media won't make a difference unless you are having reading problems. Digital audio artifacts are generally not "graceful" and you will be able to tell.

The rest of this "difference in quality" is all in the mind.

And ROF, do a little bit of research on MP3. MP3 at 320 kbit/s is definitely transparent to source. All other things being equal, it will sound identical.

People think that even high bitrate MP3s don't sound as good because "things aren't equal"... e.g., using poor quality ripping program leading to RIPPING artifacts (not ENCODING artifacts), MP3s listened to on PC speakers vs Hi-Fi speakers, transcoding low bitrate MP3s to higher bitrate, etc.

On A-B testing (e.g., source vs MP3 encoded and then decoded and burnt back to a CD), the vast majority of people cannot tell the difference between source and 256 kbit/s CBR MP3 on a good encoding algorithm (e.g., LAME or Fraunhofer).

Regards.

[lumis]

i cant believe ROF maintains his stance, even when presented with all the evidence in the world that there is no difference & that he is dead wrong.. sounds like someone has a case of republicanitis..

it's pretty hilarious..

it would be like making a copy of a single layer dvd through dvd decrypter (iso/read, iso/write) and then having ROF tell you that the movie will be better quality if you burn it to a "movie dvd-r" and not a "data dvd-r", or a dvd-r instead of a dvd+r.. or if you have a sony drive instead of a memorex drive..

now considering that you're using good quality media in all of the examples and you have a good quality player & burner, all copies (even 998438348th "generation") copies will look identi-*******-cal.

i guess ROF just cant admit he was wrong.. i'll betcha he works at best buy dispensing his invaluable knowledge to many many consumers..

[davideck]

I knew that the extreme audiophiles were skeptical of sampling theory, but I didn't realize that they were skeptical of information theory as well.

Assuming identical D/A performance, if bit-equivalent files sound different, then one file has different information from another. That's impossible.

As Cornucopia has so aptly explained, it's all in the A/D, the D/A, and the error management/concealment.

[offline]

@ Lumis

Swearing is not encouraged in the general subjects and political references are a no no.

...case of republicanitis..

will look identi-*******-cal.

@ all

Keep it nice please

[dvdx_925]

ROF there is no quality difference, believe me. Its digital information, how could there be any difference?

But you see in the Music CDs the '1's are straighter and the '0's are rounder, thereby giving the 'crisper' sound. In the early days of music CD they attempted to extract atoms from Rice Crispies to make the music CDs- they thought perhaps Rice Crispy atoms would give Crispy sound. That theory was put to rest when they realized that the Rice Crispy atoms drastically increased the snaps, crackles and pops in the music.

hmmm..for some reason what u juz said kinda made me laugh...."straighter" and "rounder"....u kinda makin digital sound like analog...digital only check for the existence of 1's or 0's and not the shape of it so wat u said, how is that possible?

[adam]

There's a reason it kinda made you laugh. You couldn't tell it was a joke from the Rice Crispies line?

[ROF]

@vitualis

Can you please tell me which ripping software I could use to get an MP3 to sound exactly identical to an audio CD? I've tried this several times using several methods, several bit rates, several programs and not once have I ever gotten a single MP3 =<320K to sound even remotely like the audio CD quality. If you can't hear the difference then there must something you are using that I haven't tried. I'd gladly try, even to the point of purchasing software to create an MP3 file that sounds identical to the audio CD quality.

I've also not found a single data CD that can produce a perfectly clean copy 1:1 of an audio CD. Using music CDs I can, but not a single data CD. Can you suggest a data CD I can purchase to produce a perfect 1:1 copy of an audio disc?

[whitejremiah]

as for 320k/s mp3.......there is definately some truth to that, it is not, nor has anyone claimed it to be bit for bit identical to the source......to a good chunk of people though, it SOUNDS identical.............as for copying a music cd 1:1 about the only thing that would affect the quality is if you set the burn speed too high, it COULD potentially cause some errors when transferring the data (mind you, it would be errors that any cd player that can play them back would skip right over and would NOT be noticeable by any normal means...even if you had some audiophile headphones...... i think we all should buy cd presses just to make ROF happy.

[ROF]

Digital is digital is digital.

The rest of this "difference in quality" is all in the mind.

And ROF, do a little bit of research on MP3. MP3 at 320 kbit/s is definitely transparent to source. All other things being equal, it will sound identical.

Thanks for your patronage whitejremiah but Vitualis seems to believe that you can somehow magically rip an MP3 with some Harry Potter Proof software that waves a magic wand and a 320K MP3 will become identical to the source. I'd be curious to find out what method is used, what software performs this mystical feat, and what media I should use. It seems since several people include you whitejremiah have admitted that MP3 audio does not sound identical or even "transparent" whatever that means to the original source material. I never suggested buying a press, but I have suggested that those who want to produce quality 1:1 reproduction of audio CDs should invest in music CD-Rs instead of wasting precious data CD-Rs that can sound inferior. Granted the sound difference is no where near what it between an MP3 and a audio CD source, but there is a difference as Vitualis says "if all things are considered equal."

[vitualis]

Sorry, but please do some frigging research before spouting off your uninformed nonsense.

No one said that any MP3 encoding is identical. MP3 by nature is a lossy compression scheme. The point is, however, is that it is transparent to source.

Transparent to source means that no one can tell the difference with double blinded A-B testing within statistical significance. That is, to our ears it sounds the same.

There have been numerous experiments performed before. 320 kbit/s MP3 is transparent to source. Now if you feel that MP3 lessens the quality of the sound, then by all means only use your original CDs. However, the opinion that many seem to hold that they can "tell the difference" between high bitrate MP3 and source is utter nonsense.

Use a proper ripping program like CDex so that you get bit correct extraction. Then use a high quality MP3 encoding algorithm like LAME.

Furthermore, you have been warned in the past about persistently spreading incorrect information on this forum. Music CD-Rs do not lead to superior music quality. That is undeniable fact. If you continue to post nonsense again without qualification of a submission of a reference, I will give you a warning.

Regards.

[Noahtuck]

There's a reason it kinda made you laugh. You couldn't tell it was a joke from the Rice Crispies line?

I was trying to figure out if maybe he was joking!!!

Those damn curved "1's" always messing up my shi.... errr.... stuff :P


Someone sure talks, er types just to type eh 8)

And don't underestimate "rice crispys" power!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Remeber!!!!!!! Richard Pryor almsost blew himself up and almost burned himself to death by dunking a chocolate chip cookie in his glass of milk when it exploded!!!!!!!!!!

[lumis]

Furthermore, you have been warned in the past about persistently spreading incorrect information on this forum. Music CD-Rs do not lead to superior music quality. That is undeniable fact. If you continue to post nonsense again without qualification of a submission of a reference, I will give you a warning.

Regards.

(about the data cd-r VS music cd-r thing)


about the 320kbps mp3.. there might be some people out there with golden ears that can tell the difference between an audio cd (or cd-r) and a 320kbps mp3, even properly extracted & encoded.. but i'd say at least 98% of people couldnt tell the difference on a consistent basis.

[mattso]

Are you guys talking about when shit-brand CDRs start sounding like a distortion pedal turned up? I'm wondering if it's your old softwares &/or burners, rather than the disk's physical properties?

[vitualis]

I've tried this several times using several methods, several bit rates, several programs and not once have I ever gotten a single MP3 =<320K to sound even remotely like the audio CD quality.

If this were true, this is user error.

I challenge anyone to be able to consistently distinguish between source and 320 kbit/s MP3 encoded with LAME. People talk big but the reality is that no one can do it. The people who claim they can are the same as those who reckon they can hear the difference between different digital cables.

Regards.

[Rich86]

. . but Vitualis seems to believe that you can somehow magically rip an MP3 with some Harry Potter Proof software that waves a magic wand and a 320K MP3 will become identical to the source. I'd be curious to find out what method is used, what software performs this mystical feat, and what media I should use. It seems since several people include you whitejremiah have admitted that MP3 audio does not sound identical or even "transparent" whatever that means to the original source material. I never suggested buying a press, but I have suggested that those who want to produce quality 1:1 reproduction of audio CDs should invest in music CD-Rs instead of wasting precious data CD-Rs that can sound inferior. Granted the sound difference is no where near what it between an MP3 and a audio CD source, but there is a difference as Vitualis says "if all things are considered equal."

I agree with ROF that converting a standard digital audio track to a MP3 will, in fact, change the sound, to some extent. How apparent the differences are when critically compared has much to do with the quality of the music reproduction equipment being used to play the music, the listening environment and the person's hearing ability.

The notion that a music cd-r can somehow do a better job than a data cd-r when recording and reproducing the data bitstream associated with standard digital audio tracks is complete and utter nonsense.

[Cornucopia]

OK,

I'm gonna kill 2 birds with 1 stone. I'm going to do a test using some of my own recordings (24bit, 96kHz, stereo--recorded with Schoeps, AKG or Neumann mikes to Millenium MikePre's to Alesis A/D to Alesis Masterlink HD recorder--not too shabby!), since this will be my own stuff we won't have to worry about copyright crap (the music is old PD choral stuff).

I'll down-convert to CD quality (16bit, 44100Hz, stereo, LPCM) and save a 10-15sec clip as WAVE.

Then I'll burn (as Audio Mode) to DataCD media and rip (using EAC) back to another WAVE.

Then I'll burn (again from the original, as Audio Mode) to MusicCD media and rip (using EAC) back to still another WAVE.

Then, I'll encode the CD quality original to 320kbps stereo mp3, using the Fraunheofer plugin for ProTools (arguably the best implementation), then decode and save back to WAVE.

I'll also encode the CD quality original to 128kbps stereo mp3, using the same plugin, decoding again back to WAVE.

Then I'll make a copy of one of these files (Windows Hard drive file copy), but won't let you know which.

So we'll end up with 6 files--1 original and 4 at one generation down, plus 1 "myster" file. All will be WAVE. We'll do a Blind Multiple choice test...

You can do a bit-for-bit comparision on the various files AFTER you've listened and PM'd me with your guesses as to which ones are which. Don't post anything giving your guesses away to anyone else until 1 week after I've uploaded the files, when I'll let you know which file is which. At least one file will probably be easy to guess (the 128kbps mp3), but we'll see about the others...

How's that sound? If you like the idea, I'll upload this afternoon.

Scott

>>>>>>>
edit: If church music isn't your bag, tough. It's still great quality recordings.

[ROF]

OK,

I'm gonna kill 2 birds with 1 stone. I'm going to do a test using some of my own recordings (24bit, 96kHz, stereo--recorded with Schoeps, AKG or Neumann mikes to Millenium MikePre's to Alesis A/D to Alesis Masterlink HD recorder--not too shabby!), since this will be my own stuff we won't have to worry about copyright crap (the music is old PD choral stuff).

I'll down-convert to CD quality (16bit, 44100Hz, stereo, LPCM) and save a 10-15sec clip as WAVE.

Then I'll burn (as Audio Mode) to DataCD media and rip (using EAC) back to another WAVE.

Then I'll burn (again from the original, as Audio Mode) to MusicCD media and rip (using EAC) back to still another WAVE.

Then, I'll encode the CD quality original to 320kbps stereo mp3, using the Fraunheofer plugin for ProTools (arguably the best implementation), then decode and save back to WAVE.

I'll also encode the CD quality original to 128kbps stereo mp3, using the same plugin, decoding again back to WAVE.

Then I'll make a copy of one of these files (Windows Hard drive file copy), but won't let you know which.

So we'll end up with 6 files--1 original and 4 at one generation down, plus 1 "myster" file. All will be WAVE. We'll do a Blind Multiple choice test...

You can do a bit-for-bit comparision on the various files AFTER you've listened and PM'd me with your guesses as to which ones are which. Don't post anything giving your guesses away to anyone else until 1 week after I've uploaded the files, when I'll let you know which file is which. At least one file will probably be easy to guess (the 128kbps mp3), but we'll see about the others...

How's that sound? If you like the idea, I'll upload this afternoon.

Scott

>>>>>>>
edit: If church music isn't your bag, tough. It's still great quality recordings.

Your test is utterly inconclusive and unreliable.

[rijir2001]

Oh My GOSH!!!

How in the heck could 1's and 0's on a disc differ from media to media? They can not!!! We are talking digital here. This is not analog. Two totally different animals.

Before long this post is going to split between those who believe we never went to the moon or if the world is flat or not.

This blows my mind!!

[whitejremiah]

Your test is utterly inconclusive and unreliable.

Sounds like ROF is chickening out.....

[rijir2001]

You can always tell if people don't feel truely strong about something if they are unwilling to submit to a test to verify their theory.

[ROF]

Your test is utterly inconclusive and unreliable.

Sounds like ROF is chickening out.....

Nope just saying the test is inconclusive since the equipment used would not be inherently available to the average or even the typical user. It would be irrelevant because the test method is flawed in many ways not the least of which is the type of music chosen which is far from representative of the music currently available in MP3 form and also doesn't take into account the pressed recordings from which most source material is converted into MP3 form.

It's a completely and utterly flawed testing method. It's unreliable in more ways than I've currently listed and can not represent a true model for MP3 conversion.

[ROF]

Before long this post is going to split between those who believe we never went to the moon or if the world is flat or not.

The moon doesn't exist and the world is flat.

[Rich86]

The moon doesn't exist and the world is flat.

And in spite of the smiley - ROF will probably argue his position on this vehemently if anyone challenges him.

[ROF]

Nah! It would be off topic to argue such things. Not to mention the political implications behind the false existence of the moon.