Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Fidelity of CD audio copies...?

Apr 25, 2005 4:35AM PDT

I have an on-going debate with a co-worker. He states that whenever you make a copy of an audio CD, the fidelity or sound quality when playing back the copied CD is never as good as the sound quality of the original. I contend that digital audio is just binary code-- ones and zeros, and that there should be no difference between the original and the copied audio CD. Although I have to admit, that I have "ripped" CDA files to MP3, then burned them back to disk as CDA, and there was a very noticible difference in fidelity. But what about just copying the disk, CDA audio, as it is? Does anyone have any information relating to this issue?

Thanks for any and all advice!

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Not an expert myself
Apr 25, 2005 9:24PM PDT

but I would guess the same as you. If you're copying from CD to CD in the same format, eg CDA, you are only copying binary and they should be the same.

Mark

- Collapse -
You are posting a Reply to: Fidelity of CD audio copies
Apr 27, 2005 6:42AM PDT

Fisrt, when you make a digitial copy of a digitial file it is an exact copy! So copying an audio cd to antoher cd is an exact copy, there is no difference.
When you convert to a MP3 which is a lossly compression of the of the file it will NOT be an exact copy, since parts of the file were discarded in the conversion process. John

- Collapse -
Thanks John....
Apr 28, 2005 5:14AM PDT

Is MP3 format always lossy compression? Are some MP3 conversion programs better than others in terms of maintaining quality of the sound? And what's all the hoopla about MP3s anyway if the fidelity isn't as good as CD audio?

- Collapse -
And what's all the hoopla about MP3s anyway if the fidelity
Apr 28, 2005 7:49AM PDT

Portablility for one. Plus the compression is what makes it practical for people to share and download songs.

- Collapse -
Yeah but...
Apr 28, 2005 1:46PM PDT

...if the MP3s sound like crap, who cares about portability? Then all you have is portable, crappy-sounding music...

- Collapse -
You asked why people like MP3s
May 1, 2005 8:41PM PDT

Portability and ease of download are the two big reasons. Why don't you listen to a MP3 version of a song and judge for yourself?

- Collapse -
it's not always a worst-case scenario
Aug 18, 2005 7:03AM PDT

Have you ever tried listening to an MP3?

Encoded with the right bitrate (>192kbps), they sound remarkably good.

The appeal of these compressed files is the result of a cost-benefit analysis, because there are two options:
Most people are embracing a digital library that lets you play any song you can think of, spooling up the track in mere seconds. In iTunes, I can even put together a party playlist with 100's of songs, all by different artists, update my iPod, and walk out the door, all in just a few minutes.

Last generation's alternative is a physically massive CD collection whose only benefit is an almost imperceptible gain in audio fidelity. The downside is all the labor involved in listening to this collection. You have to think of what you want to listen to, go to where you keep the discs, look for one, take it out, put it in the CD player, navigate to the right track, and then begin listening. Repeat when the track is finished.

As for me, I keep my CDs in a rack. All the tracks have been ripped to ~224kbps VBR-MP3 and sit waiting in an iTunes library for my next musical whim, and I couldn't be happier with the setup.

- Collapse -
mp3 quality
May 6, 2005 12:21AM PDT

mp3 is always a lossy format so if quality is important to you, use a higher bit rate. I use 256. The files are bigger, but that's the compromise.

- Collapse -
MP3's can actually sound "better" than the original
May 7, 2005 10:07AM PDT

Sorry guys, but mp3's with decent bit rates (192 or above, done with a good codec) can sound better than the original. This is because the best microphones used have a real "bite" to them. This can sound a bit harsh on cd. MP3's ironically, because they lose some of this info and smooth it a bit actually can sound slightly better. There is also the curious ability for added distortion to help rather than hinder sound quality. Many re-masterings (Elvis was a good example) had both subsonic and ultrasonic noise added to the masters for some of the later (better sounding) releases. This trick is used more than you think, and yes it does sound better.

- Collapse -
MP3 better? You missed the point asked.....
May 8, 2005 12:03AM PDT

Sorry, but you are talking about sweetening.
The question asked was "Does copying Audio CD to Audio Cd cause loss of signal quality? I know it's not verbatim....but that is the question.

Here's the answer....NO.

Here's some truth's about recording...
A true Digital to Digital recording is the only way to maintain a Mirror image of the original.
Any conversion from Digital to Analog MAY (or may not) introduce some "conversion distortion" but the factor is usually 1% or less per conversion.

Although bit rate sampling does have an affect on sound quality, many recordings over 56-65k bit rates will not be percieved as being better. 95k + bitrates are valid for original master recordings, but thats to maintain the ability to sweeten the tracks.

Now as long as the digital to analog conversions are held to an absolute minimum, the distortion introduced will be held to an absolute minimum and certainly less than 1%, which the ear cannot percieve I might add.

And another thing....You cannot IMPROVE any recording...If you record at 56K, then attempting to record at a higher bitrate will not IMPROVE the signal quality over the original bitrate. All it does is waste space on the hard drive...Maintaining the bitrate will maintain the original information you recieved.

Now if you want to ask if "Sweetening" old tracks can help a "Master" recording....that's a different subject, with different points of view, and certainly the age and technology will affect anybody's answer about that....

- Collapse -
Sorry I know I've gotten off track
May 8, 2005 10:30AM PDT

Sorry I know it's gotten off track regarding MP3's but I also answered the question directly in my other post.


You can use the cheapest blank disk you can get
I'm sorry, but I am an audiophile. I spent all my hard earned on a good turntable, which I still have. Yes it beats the hell out of CD. What does sound better than even good vinyl are 1" copies from 24 bit Betacam digital that we used direct from record companies. Record company masters sound pretty good, and DVD audio is basically the same. However digital is digital, so when you copy a CD you have the same 1's and 0's as before. Otherwise when you copied a program to CD it probably wouldn't open.

- Collapse -
The guy is a bit of an audiophile...
May 2, 2005 9:30AM PDT

...and he contends that it would not be an exact copy because any number of distortions could affct the reconding process, from bad hardware (poor qulaity CD burners) to poor quality CD-R disks, to too fast a burn, etc. He states that he has "gold-plated digital master recordings" that he listens to on a high-end stereo, and that he can tell the difference between these digital master disks and a copy of the same disk that was burned.

Is he just blowing hot air or is there some credence to his contentions? Any audiophiles out there?

- Collapse -
His hearing is better than mine
May 3, 2005 8:54AM PDT

All the years of Rock 'n Roll is beginning to catch up with me. If a copy or MP3 isn't as good, I can't tell nor care.

- Collapse -
???
May 3, 2005 11:55AM PDT

A purchased CD is manufactured in a totally different way than one burned on a computer. (it isn't burned, it is in fact is pressed just like the old vinyl records from a master) I find it difficult to imagine a boughten CD is of comparible quality as one made on a 100$ Cd burner. I saw this on a television show where a viewer wrote in and asked an expert.

- Collapse -
Reply to: ???
May 5, 2005 10:38PM PDT

A *bought* CD is manufactured differently, and lasers in CD players are designed to read that format. However, a bit for bit copy is the same, whether the equipment is $40 or $40,000. If differences are noticed, that could be due to several factors including laser accuracy on the reader, reflectivity of the burned CD, inexact copying in the first place, etc. Sometimes the burning software does not warn that a copy is a little off. I believe most CD reading drives and stand alone CD players have error detection and correction built in. One advantage a manufactured or *bought* CD has is that there are duplicate layers below the surface layer so that scratches are not necessarily immediately noticed.

- Collapse -
It has nothing to do with hearing
May 6, 2005 9:39AM PDT

It's an issue of training, not hearing per se. Audiophiles are interested in certain concepts and therefore pay attention to differences in imaging, how phase affects things, etc. They might notice a sense of depth with one recording that's missing from another, or how in one, a musician's position seems more discernible.

But it's not really hearing. If a mother of identical twins has no problem telling them apart, we don't say that she has better vision. We know that she can apply her visual skills based on her knowledge. Audio is the same.

If you learn to listen critically, you can hear all sorts of differences that you might otherwise take for granted. Even if you have hearing damage, you might find that you are more sensitive to distortion and higher quality equipment might be even more helpful for you than for somebody else. Or not.

What people forget is that many of the measurements that we use, such as frequency response, or distortion level, etc, are all ultimately based on listening tests. At one point, somebody determined what a "normal" person should hear, and came up with standards based on that. People listened. Scientists determined what they could or could not hear based on their responses. The numbers were used to quantify this.

But it's like picking a wife based on height, weight, and shoe size. Audio is such a complex phenomenon, and real life audio systems vary in complex ways, especially when it comes to transducers. So you can't objectively say what's better if one speaker is off by a certain amount here and there, and another is off by little bits in other places. You have to listen.

The bottom line is that if you can't tell an MP3 from a WAV file or can't tell a pressed CD from a copy, then none of this matters. You are probably better off. Ultimately, it's the music that matters and not the system. If you enjoy it, then don't worry about the rest.

- Collapse -
At Last, Someone Who Makes Sense
May 7, 2005 6:32AM PDT

Although I would compare audiophiles and oenophiles (wine lovers) over than any other comparison.

- Collapse -
Last post is a great answer
May 8, 2005 3:22PM PDT

I spent 25 of the last 30 years building high end EQs used in such places as recording studios (think monitor room), some high end bands, churches, radio stations.
I've worked with some pretty intense audio "purists" or clean path folks. They make some very good points if one wishes to hear the sound as the artist meant it to be played. On the other hand for that to really work the artist would need to spec the speakers, amps, room size, room treatmeant, maybe even temp and pressure. All these change playback. Some of these change phaze too.
Myself I'm into a kind of spatial sound thing. It's hard to describe but I can edit (sweeten) most recordings and get this. It's a kind of full sound field is all I can say.
Anyway I'm being way too long winded. I personally agree if it sounds good to you it is good.
A short word about scientific specs though. All too often they aren't or are misleading at best. It has gotten better than it was. But I still see things like "Flat 20 Hz to 20 kHz" this means nothing without telling what the +- window is. Noise specs need to tell you how they were mesured. Often they are bandpassed well within the hearing spectrum. Wattage? Into what load? ETC ETC ETC.

Later....

- Collapse -
Please read this....
May 5, 2005 10:28PM PDT
- Collapse -
Reply to Please read this....
May 5, 2005 11:29PM PDT

I agree that this FAQ covers the subject much better than brief responses here can. Even in the case of the exact bit for bit copies "there are reasons" differences can be heard. The real answer to the original question is that an exact copy is not the only thing that determines how a CD sounds. Even manufactured CD's from different plants can be different enough for sensitive ears to hear.

- Collapse -
It's what's you listen to it on.
May 6, 2005 1:01AM PDT

You can have the most expensive home theater, stereo,etc., but, in the end, it's the transducer, i.e, speaker(s) headphones that you listen to it on that count the most.

Sure you can have distorted overdriven recordingsor gold "master" recordings, and with a good set of speakers or "phones" you and really tell if it's "crap". You can have really great speakers and crummy recordings and that's crap too.

The whole trick is to "listen". If you're going to buy something to listen on, listen to the same piece of music on different brands of speakers or headphones and setups, and then choose what sounds best to you.

Yes, a crummy recording is still a crummy recording, learn to listen and know the difference.

- Collapse -
Garbage in, garbage out.
May 6, 2005 9:44AM PDT

No matter how good the transducers, the best they can do is faithfully reproduce what goes into them. If the signal going into them is not clean, the signal coming out should not sound clean if the speakers are of high quality.

Would you rather look at a work of art though a slightly dirty window, or would you rather look at a childish drawing though a pristine window? If you have distortion at any point, nothing else can make up for it.

Many audiophiles feel that if you spend all your money on good speakers, they only thing they will do is let you know how bad your system sounds.

- Collapse -
Fidelity of CD Copies......
May 6, 2005 8:52PM PDT

This AR must have been living on Mars since the original Napster bit the dust.
MP3s are close enough to the originals that the record companies have been code red for nearly a decade now.
Even with master copies, you have distortion, poor quailty playback gear, acts of God, etc.
Unauthorized ( unpaid ) copies.. damn GOOD copies, are everywhere like social disease.
I have ripped my 300+ CDs into MP3 files which I burn copies for my car
CD unit. There is NO difference in FIdelity from the original discs which
I keep as the ULTIMATE backup!
The record companie's main ***** is that FILE SHARING is killing their cash cow. If you can borrow it, why BUY it?
Personally, I like owning the whole cow the original CD, w/ atrwork, note, lyrics, etc, but some folks are just not interested in paying the atrist who created the work because the record companies get a cut .. how the hell would your HEAR of new atrists if not for some Label out there pimping new and fresh artists?
Rip your own( paid for CDs) and tell this guy to take a leap at a rolling doughnut!

- Collapse -
cd difference
May 6, 2005 11:23PM PDT

The master cd he's talking about was recorded at a much higher bit rate and khz ( 24 Bit 96K ). This is then dithered down to a RED BOOK CD Standard (16 Bit 44.1K ). This copy was done on top end equipment, that can make sure every bit is recorded. The Cheaper the Burner, software and CD quality all reflect on the end sound. For exact CD copy's you'll need a top sound card, and Audiophile CD software. Try Calkwalk Pyro 2004, Or Sony's Sound Forge CD Architect 5.2. These programs will make make exact copy's, without loss of sound quality. Use a Slower burn time with a higher end cd. Tayio Unden Silver 52x with blue oxide dye, or ceramic backed CD-R's will give you the most accurate sound reproduction.

- Collapse -
You can use the cheapest blank disk you can get
May 7, 2005 9:56AM PDT

I'm sorry, but I am an audiophile. I spent all my hard earned on a good turntable, which I still have. Yes it beats the hell out of CD. What does sound better than even good vinyl are 1" copies from 24 bit Betacam digital that we used direct from record companies. Record company masters sound pretty good, and DVD audio is basically the same. However digital is digital, so when you copy a CD you have the same 1's and 0's as before. Otherwise when you copied a program to CD it probably wouldn't open.

- Collapse -
Fidelity of CD audio copies
May 5, 2005 10:52PM PDT

A mass-produced audio CD may have many errors on it, which is why CD players have built-in error correction.
A copy of that CD burned on a computer should be digitally identical to the original, provided that the original was error free. It may still theoretically sound slightly different depending upon how the D/A converters deal with timing differences.
The way that the computer deals with any errors may mean that the copy is different from the original, but all copies should be the same.
MP3 compression removes any information of quieter sounds that an algorithm decides would be masked by the more dominant louder sounds based on the theory that the human ear would not be able to detect them.

- Collapse -
Fidelity of CD audio copies
May 5, 2005 10:28PM PDT

Copied disks almost always miss a few bits of data here and there, and that's if you make your copy at 4x speed. If you are copying at a speed of 24x of faster there will be significant increase of missed data. You may not notice the missing data just doing a casual listen but if you compare the original to the copy you will hear an audible difference. Copy that copy again you will definately hear the difference, but that is also subjective. Not everybody has the same hearing sensitivity. When I must make a CD copy I always copy at the slowest speed and shut down all other programs to enable less data loss to the copy.

- Collapse -
A copy without compression is an exact copy
May 5, 2005 10:31PM PDT

If you make a copy of the binary data of the original CD and put it on another CD, you have a perfect copy of the original. Pressed or burned, if the binary data on the copied CD is bit-to-bit identical to the original binary data, there is no debate, this is a prefect copy.

Now, if you rip the CD first using any kind of compression to reduce the size of the data on your hard drive and then burn the "uncompressed" data on another CD, then you lose information in the process.

There are programs out there that will enable you to make a bit-to-bit copy of a CD without any concern of what type of data you are copying (it won't care if it's an audio CD or any kind of CD).

- Collapse -
bit-to-bit identical?
May 5, 2005 10:49PM PDT

What you are saying is "thearoretically" correct but you fail to consider the shortcomings of the blank media itself. Just like vinyl records, there can be small voids or unrecordable areas on the blank CD itself. That in itself will cause missing data bits. Read my post on this.

- Collapse -
Exact Audio Copy
May 5, 2005 10:41PM PDT

Try the link below. EAC (exact audio copy) has been the defacto standard in the trading of music for the "jamband" scene for years. (note: trading of music authorized by the bands)It includes error correction and allows you to compare the copy to the original and even allows some editing features.

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/