I wonder what the “big people” who work for the companies that commercially manufacture some good sounding CDs (it happens occasionally) use as the CD recorders?

It happens with me 1-2 times per year when I’m trying to records something on CD and I constantly get disappointed with the results. I used a few dedicated “unloaded” PC boxes with good CR-writers (including external), the top of the lines of Mackies, Fostexes, Denons, HHBs, Tascams and Alesis and all of them did not perform well. I heard that MAC’s CRW are better... but I never tried…

Anyhow, what the “big boys” use for recording? I can’t believe that the DG guys who did “The Originals”, the EMI guys who did “Great Recording of Century”, the guys who did the “Testaments” or many other labels humiliate themselves with CDR junk that I have tried. Perhaps, they handle and master data in DAT format but still soon on later it got recorded to CD disk. How do they it?

Thanks,
Romy the Cat

Max, actually I have opposite experience and I detected that a quality of burned CD dose not depend from CD transport it was played on. I mean certainly it is different from transport to transport but the burned CD has own let call it “misery delta” and this delta is more or less the same across all transports.

Certainly I did experimented with various burning speed and various blank disks.  The results are different but still they are below any accepted expectation. Also, talking about the transports: the CD burners are horrible transports, very horrible. For instance when I rip a CD cuts to the HD of that foolish Masterlink I never use the Masterlink transport but the TL0’s external digital stream - the result in quality is staggering!  The Masterlink’s HD copy sound more or less OK. However, as soon I write it to a disk (for instance I like the top of the line Apogee disks), even without rendering, then sound instantly goes to toilet. Some CD burners do better or worth job (for instance top of the line HHB or the cheapest Denons do better but still they all operate way far from a level that I would consider acceptable.

Rgs,
The Cat

Well, I did hear some very positive result when people did not make CDs form glass copies (as the “big people” do) but actually burned them in the “regular” CD writers. How they did it I have no idea.  Also, I have no idea what hardware/software they used.  I only know that whatever I have seen and tried were not good.

About playing it from HD… it is hard to say. It is defiantly way better then recorded to CD but still the direct output of TL0 sounds more interesting. However, I would be completely content if I would be able to get out of a CD burner the result that I get by placing music directly from HD.

BTW, playing directly from HD is always produce OK result. For instance I hate SACD, not that I hate the format but I hate ANY SACD result that I ever heard (and I believe that I head anything out there). However, there was one, and the only one experience with SACD that delivered a phenomenal result. It was in 1999 or something like this when Maitner only introduced SACD and the first Sony players weren’t widely available. I remember I stopped by in juts opened Mark Levinson store in NY and they played for me few cuts. The music was recorded directly to the HD and they played it form the same HD via a prototype Maitner pro DSD converter. THAT was good, very-very good!!! Even if I mentally subtract from that sound the crappy music that they recorded, the horrible ML speaker and the very ordinary ML electronics then still clearly the DSD performed very wonderfully. After that, the CD players and transports became available and the DSD when to toilet. Or perhaps the consumer version of the DSD converted screw the picture up.... I really do not know, and do not care. What I defiantly know, that I never since then heard SACD performing even remotely competitive to a properly implemented 16-bit PCM.

Rgs,
The Cat

LC >
Now suppose you want to copy a CD you own to play it into your car stereo system. CD copies done my means of a PC and a CD recorder aren't always identical to the original.
Since this is a very Frequently Asked Question would you please tell us something about this topic?

BK >
The key is the writer. Most of these software packages can produce perfect clones, unless you buy a package that allows you to change the levels or EQ. Those packages will always sound inferior. Don't get into that game if you're an audiophile. It's impossible to copy a CD, add EQ or adjust levels without making a sound inferior to the original. Only if you have access to the 24-bit unequalized master can you produce a CD that's better or equal to the original.

But if you are just interested in making exact copies (clones), here are the issues....
If you have a good "copying" package that produces perfect clones, then the writer must be of extremely good quality. The computer industry has made commodities out of cheap writers that can produce good data, but are terrible with audio.
The CD writer I use is the best in the world. It cost over $9000 (U.S.) and is no longer made. It has a very heavy duty base, strong laser, stable clock, stable motor, etc. Current writers can now be bought for $400-$500. Don't you think something was sacrificed in the process?
But as I said above, if you have a perfect D/A converter, then the quality of the writer is less important. Forget about the writers... you won't find a great one any more; it's economically impossible to get one made that pros will buy at that price. Instead, buy a D/A Converter and CD transport combination that makes the differences inaudible.