Audio CD's: Do copies of copies degrade quality?

No offense intended; but your reasoning is again false... You state you
have 'no time to learn' technique and s/w that will IMO save you
considerable time...

EAC is a jackhammer for DAE; wrong hammer selection when you're
tinkering with your watch...g

If your source discs are in good condition you can conceivable burn from
the originals OTF *faster* than using EAC on the copies; you might even
be able to do the same from the copies as source too. This is not
specific to Feurio s/w; but Feurio will tell you if any rereads occurred
(C2) co you can check your results for acceptability. We were talking
"car copies"; right? You keep thinking 'archival and trading' betwixt
the lines.

Even if you don't have Two drives; your primary reader/burner would have
to have really ****ty DAE (which it likely doesn't) for EAC to make
*any* difference with a good source disc. I say again; why waste your
time? Nothing makes it easier or faster than Feurio.

Tim K

"jack" wrote in message
...
"Tim Kroesen" wrote in message
...
: Totally false; bit for bit perfect is just what it implies and it is
: relatively easy with a good reader and s/w to produce (and prove).
That
: leaves only the pregaps, sub-channel data and sector offset to
: reproduce; again easily done and provable...
:
: OP is on the wrong track with mental methodology in 'copying the
copies'
: however. EAC shines in *reading* the disc exactly multiple times
and
: comparing the results; CloneCD won't do that. IMO OP would check
out
: Feurio for his day to day audio 'chores'... then he wouldn't be
: *dreading* the thought of recopying all those titles using EAC...g

Heh heh...that's why I posted in the first place....to see if I was
anywhere **near** the tracks. ;-) The only reason I was thinking
about
doing it this way was strictly as a time saver. CloneCD would
definitely be faster than EAC, and since all my first-gen copies are
sitting right here all together in a CD-binder, I wouldn't have to go
through my collection and dig out the originals again. So this was
strictly a "lazyness approach" which, after reading other posts in
this
thread, I have decided NOT to do. I'll stick with EAC.

:
: Hey we're making CAR COPIES here; not working on a Smithsonian
project!
: I'd be doing this on the fly drive to drive using Feurio and
enjoying
: (through day to day experience) a 99.9%+ success rate making a
'perfect'
: copy...

I have no desire (or time) to learn yet another piece of software.
Sounds like you're happy with Feurio and that's great, but I simply
don't have the time (at this point in time) and can't make the
time....I've simply run out of time. ;-)) Thanks for the input.

J.

Back in the day: ,
Chip opined:

Hey Jack, like I said I have no axe to grind here. I
couldn't give a toss if you want to make 100 copies.

But copying *your* CD's for your wife to listen to is
pirating. You can argue all you like about what to call
it.

Actually, this is considered "fair use" - under US law - if Jack and his
spouse share the same residence, share the 'means' (i.e., the car's sound
system) and share the same 'purpose' (i.e., personal entertainment).

However, if they don't (for example, if they are married but in fact don't
live together, or if they have completely separate and exclusive 'means'),
it THEORETICALLY MAY be considered pirating.

But no one will EVER try to test this theory, though.

So for all intents and purposes, it is OK.

"jack" wrote in message
...

"Chip" wrote in message
...
: "jack" wrote in message
: ...
Did you read what I just wrote? I said we switch cars all the time (I
realize I did NOT say this in my OP). So I (or we) am listening to the
same music in two different cars. Yeah, my wife plays the CD's too, but
I would hardly go as far as to say I'm pirating them because SHE is
listening as well. Anyway, I call 'em as I see 'em, and that is how I
see it, and that is how it is. So call me pirate, I don't agree and
simply couldn't give a **** anyway. The music is paid for, and I'll do
with it as I see fit. Later.

J.

If you couldn't give a **** why did you begin your original post with "Let
me clarify, because I am NOT pirating audio CD's! (the silly thing is that
if you hadn't began your original post with this, probably nobody would have
said anything about being a pirate.)

"Camper" wrote in message
...
:
: "jack" wrote in message
: ...
:
: "Chip" wrote in message
: ...
: : "jack" wrote in message
: : ...
: Did you read what I just wrote? I said we switch cars all the time
(I
: realize I did NOT say this in my OP). So I (or we) am listening to
the
: same music in two different cars. Yeah, my wife plays the CD's too,
but
: I would hardly go as far as to say I'm pirating them because SHE is
: listening as well. Anyway, I call 'em as I see 'em, and that is how
I
: see it, and that is how it is. So call me pirate, I don't agree and
: simply couldn't give a **** anyway. The music is paid for, and I'll
do
: with it as I see fit. Later.
:
: J.
:
: If you couldn't give a **** why did you begin your original post with
"Let
: me clarify, because I am NOT pirating audio CD's! (the silly thing is
that
: if you hadn't began your original post with this, probably nobody
would have
: said anything about being a pirate.)
:

In retrospect I think I agree with you. I wish I hadn't even started
the thread at all. sigh

J.

If copying audio was merely a question of producing a bit matched copy of
the original - here also a copy - then you would be correct, but copying
audio involves reading and hopefully correcting the inevitable errors on the
source disc and writing a new disc with those errors corrected. Because of
the way the disc is written with data redundancy, a copy could theoretically
contain fewer errors than the original, though that copy will have a
different pattern of errors. All audio discs have errors. It is how those
errors are ultimately handled that determines the potential sound quality of
the replay system.

Clone CD will copy audio discs, but will not necessarily give the best
results.

--

Graham Mayor




Never anonymous Bud wrote:
Separating himself from Baghdad Bob, "Graham Mayor"
whined:

Clone CD may be fine for copying data discs, but I wouldn't put it
anywhere
near audio, unless there was no other way of copying the disc.

That makes NO sense.

Data is data, whether it's a program, pictures, OR music.





To reply by email, remove the XYZ.

Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

It's your SIG, say what you want to say....

"jack" wrote in message
...
"Camper" wrote in message
...
:
: "jack" wrote in message
: ...
:
: "Chip" wrote in message
: ...
: : "jack" wrote in message
: : ...
: Did you read what I just wrote? I said we switch cars all the time
(I
: realize I did NOT say this in my OP). So I (or we) am listening to
the
: same music in two different cars. Yeah, my wife plays the CD's too,
but
: I would hardly go as far as to say I'm pirating them because SHE is
: listening as well. Anyway, I call 'em as I see 'em, and that is how
I
: see it, and that is how it is. So call me pirate, I don't agree and
: simply couldn't give a **** anyway. The music is paid for, and I'll
do
: with it as I see fit. Later.
:
: J.
:
: If you couldn't give a **** why did you begin your original post with
"Let
: me clarify, because I am NOT pirating audio CD's! (the silly thing is
that
: if you hadn't began your original post with this, probably nobody
would have
: said anything about being a pirate.)
:

In retrospect I think I agree with you. I wish I hadn't even started
the thread at all. sigh

J.

I am glad you did as I learnt a bit more about EAC (downloaded it about a
year ago but have not used it much). One thing about newsgroups is that
there seems to be a lot of amateur lawyers lurking just waiting to jump on
somebody's post.

If you do a lot of audio work I would suggest you follow Tims suggestion
and try Feuiro. I tried it on his recommendation about 3 years ago and have
used it ever since.

"Graham Mayor" wrote in message
...
If copying audio was merely a question of producing a bit matched copy of
the original - here also a copy - then you would be correct, but copying
audio involves reading and hopefully correcting the inevitable errors on
the
source disc and writing a new disc with those errors corrected. Because of
the way the disc is written with data redundancy, a copy could
theoretically
contain fewer errors than the original, though that copy will have a
different pattern of errors. All audio discs have errors. It is how those
errors are ultimately handled that determines the potential sound quality
of
the replay system.

Clone CD will copy audio discs, but will not necessarily give the best
results.

Doesn't jitter also came into the equation? i.e. Audio CD's (being quite old
technology) are a strange mix of analogue and digital: Yes the bits are
digital enough, but the clock signal used to drive the DAC's is actually
recovered from the data stream coming off the disk? So any timing "wobble"
in the data stream (i.e. jitter) produces distortion. Is it not the case
that the CD copy could in theory be bit-perfect, but due to the very tiny
variations in where the bits are actually located, the copy has more
inherent jitter?

This is how I thought it worked. Please do correct me if this is not
correct?

Cheers,

Chip.

See http://www.earthcurrents.com/london-live/cd-jitter.pdf

--

Graham Mayor




Chip wrote:
"Graham Mayor" wrote in message
...
If copying audio was merely a question of producing a bit matched
copy of the original - here also a copy - then you would be correct,
but copying audio involves reading and hopefully correcting the
inevitable errors on the source disc and writing a new disc with
those errors corrected. Because of the way the disc is written with
data redundancy, a copy could theoretically contain fewer errors
than the original, though that copy will have a different pattern of
errors. All audio discs have errors. It is how those errors are
ultimately handled that determines the potential sound quality of
the replay system.

Clone CD will copy audio discs, but will not necessarily give the
best results.

Doesn't jitter also came into the equation? i.e. Audio CD's (being
quite old technology) are a strange mix of analogue and digital: Yes
the bits are digital enough, but the clock signal used to drive the
DAC's is actually recovered from the data stream coming off the disk?
So any timing "wobble" in the data stream (i.e. jitter) produces
distortion. Is it not the case that the CD copy could in theory be
bit-perfect, but due to the very tiny variations in where the bits
are actually located, the copy has more inherent jitter?

This is how I thought it worked. Please do correct me if this is not
correct?

Cheers,

Chip.

"Camper" wrote in message
...
:
snip

: In retrospect I think I agree with you. I wish I hadn't even
started
: the thread at all. sigh
:
: J.
:
: I am glad you did as I learnt a bit more about EAC (downloaded it
about a
: year ago but have not used it much). One thing about newsgroups is
that
: there seems to be a lot of amateur lawyers lurking just waiting to
jump on
: somebody's post.

laughs...Yep, I noticed....and I HATE lawyers!

:
: If you do a lot of audio work I would suggest you follow Tims
suggestion
: and try Feuiro. I tried it on his recommendation about 3 years ago and
have
: used it ever since.
:

Yeah, I think I'll give it a looksy when I can carve out a few hours to
do it (is there some way to make a 25-hour day? :-).

Regards,

Jack

See also the replies from William Leech.
*All* audio discs have errors - in some cases tens of thousands of errors.
Most of these are inaudible due to the error correction systems of the
reading equipment. When the disc is accurately ripped to WAV, these errors
are eliminated or corrected and you start with a clean sheet for the write
process. The write will introduce a new set of errors, and it is not at all
unusual for the copy to have fewer errors than even a commercially pressed
disc.
The harder a player has to work to correct these errors, the nastier the CD
sound will be - and that's for those errors that can be corrected. It is
also the principal reason why CDs from different batches sound different
from one another.
Maybe this will help
http://www.ee.washington.edu/consele...udio2/95x7.htm
--

Graham Mayor





Never anonymous Bud wrote:
Separating himself from Baghdad Bob, "Graham Mayor"
whined:

If copying audio was merely a question of producing a bit matched
copy of
the original - here also a copy - then you would be correct, but
copying
audio involves reading and hopefully correcting the inevitable
errors on the source disc and writing a new disc with those errors
corrected.

Now HOW in the HELL can a copy process correct errors in the
original??





To reply by email, remove the XYZ.

Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

It's your SIG, say what you want to say....