Burning CD-R with a BluRay Burner

[Deleted]

AlexI like it when the maths don't add up.or there something they're missing in the calc'sallanThe question is...... what?

Allan
Obviously,the conclusion has to be that both jeffc and myself are Wayne Kerrs ? Seeing those results posted were from both the discs in the Sony "Feel the Difference of the Blu-spec CD -Rock Selection" this would mean that the team from Sony are also Wayne Kerrs ?
Alex

[Spirit]

Naturally... and thus back to my last request for an abx in foobar2000... ;D

[nickyboyo]

I have listened to Marvin Gaye's Sexual Healing and carried out a DBT for Alex through my amp. Not knowing which version was which, it turns out that i listened to the conventionaly burnt cd version (from the hard drive) first. The Blu Ray version was far superior to the conventional cd version. Much wider soundstage, far more precise sense of instrument positioning, trebles had more zing and crispness and the bass was much more controlled.

I wouldn't of thought the 2 versions would be that different, but. to my surprise, the Blu Ray cd version was far superior, by a long chalk to.

[Spirit]

Could *somebody* do an abx with foobar... 10 or so rounds.
I'm happy to accept the results, regardless of who does it

[Deleted]

Apr 4, 2009 10:20:52 GMT Spirit said:

Could *somebody* do an abx with foobar... 10 or so rounds.
I'm happy to accept the results, regardless of who does it

spirit
To conclusively either verify, (or dismiss) previously posted claims, you would need to copy the RETAIL versions of both discs in question to the HDD, using a BluRay writer and EAC. Why should it be foobar ? Surely other methods are just as valid? After all, the files are supposedly identical.

[Spirit]

An abx is just a test to determine whether you can consistently pick which file is which...
[I'm testing your hearing!]

Foobar2000 just happens to have a widely used function to do just this... [abx]

[Deleted]

Apr 4, 2009 10:48:53 GMT Spirit said:

An abx is just a test to determine whether you can consistently pick which file is which...
[I'm testing your hearing!]

Foobar2000 just happens to have a widely used function to do just this... [abx]

Phil
I am fully aware of what an ABX is. FWIW, virtually all the minor modifications made to the SC HA were far harder to pick than these audible differences being discussed are,and no, I didn't need to go through all that rigaramole to come to those conclusions. It's something that comes with experience. I bet that Mike,Leo,Allan,Jeffc,Graham and Robert, don't need to do that either !
Alex

[jeffc]

Hey Phil.

Tried abx'ing HDD .WAV tracks yesterday once I figured out I needed to find and copy the abx .dll to the Foobah components folder. Same Harry Manx HDD .WAV files used as these are extremely well recorded and very revealing. Before I had just listened to the tracks most or all the way through and scored overall impressions on which provided the most mojo. The BR writer invariably come out on top for SQ reasons stated earlier.

To try and get a better handle on why the better mojo, I'd played short (~20 sec) track sections quickly changing between rips several times and this is how I came to the impression that it might be HF resolution/harmonics that give acoustic guitar, for example, a newer string sound. There could, however, be a trade off for lower harmonics, hence my comment about starkness of the BR rip compared to richer, although slightly smoothed/dulled sound/tone of the CD/DVD rip. Its not as dramatic an affect as the chalk and cheese BR burned CD-R compared to a CD/DVD burned CD-R, but there is a difference between the HDD files due to some "twilight zone" factor.

Anyways, ABX jumping between tracks in real time didn't help me out much I'm sorry to say for some reason. However, as soon as I went back to playing a short section and then replaying the same section, SQ differences could be detected quite easily and reproducibly. Weird

cheers.. jeffc

[Deleted]

There could, however, be a trade off for lower harmonics, hence my comment about starkness of the BR rip compared to richer, although slightly smoothed/dulled sound/tone of the CD/DVD rip.

Jeff
Nearly all higher resolution files that I have played ,suggest that CD ,in general, has a slightly exaggerated warmth/sogginess with some low end material. Things like drums seem to need a very good HF response to follow the very short attack times that give them "impact"
Alex

[allenf]

Correct me if I've misunderstood the above; but the claim is that the "Bluray disc rip" wav - versus - "CD disc ripped with Bluray reader" wav sound different when the wavs are played back through identical hardware, even though the checksums indicate that the wav files are identical version for version?

[Spirit]

That is indeed the claim.

One of them, anyway...

[Deleted]

Apr 5, 2009 13:09:11 GMT allenf said:

Correct me if I've misunderstood the above; but the claim is that the "Bluray disc rip" wav - versus - "CD disc ripped with Bluray reader" wav sound different when the wavs are played back through identical hardware, even though the checksums indicate that the wav files are identical version for version?

allenf
Both Jeff and myself are indeed saying that. As far as the "Feel the Difference of the Blu-spec Rock Selection" , the difference is even more pronounced, as the Blu-spec version's Stamper was created using a Blue Laser. Nick has already posted that he also heard the difference between these 2 files when played back from my HDD into his own SC HA. (Reply 157 p.11)
I have forwarded a copy of this to Spirit and Jeff for a listen and further testing.
Alex

[Deleted]

UPDATE.

On a hunch, that if a BluRay writer could do a better extraction from a CD than a normal DVD writer, I wondered if the BluRay writer should be able to even more easily outperform a normal DVD writer when extracting the closer packed data from a DVD.
I just tried re-ripping "Diana Krall-When I Look In Your Eyes. DVD-A" using DVD Audio Explorer 2008 , but this time I used the BluRay writer for ripping.
Not unexpectedly, the new rip sounds considerably better than the previous rip. I wonder what part read jitter plays in all this ?

ExactCopy Report for track 4 "When I Look In Your Eyes" is attached.
Alex

Checksums generated by ExactFile 1.0.0.15
www.exactfile.com
6/04/2009 10:18:43 PM

G:\AUDIO\DVD_A files\Diana Krall-When I Look In Your Eyes\track-01-03[1]-04-[L-R]-24-96000.wav
155959748 bytes

ADLER32: e64cfa21
CRC32: f932ce68
MD2: 518828ba0a8d3e10a53a59d0fd0929cd
MD4: ab2817ba754e9f329801fcf2831ad482
MD5: 2a13bcd4dad0b2b8bfabe05723bffd9e
SHA1: 4a25ab383e8b95726fff8326f4cad1ea8d3ef85d
SHA256: 164883e68431dae206c2543945957dad62824a4141e9ed5c65a2540b297f572e
SHA384: 24f5a019ee2aabf6fbd0a1bf7f7d56213ee74954a9f379a2cb5d47838dccd7e03e95de87e4433c36e3062d34bd2b5507
SHA512: 2a3012d94bceff837ffea8a86bbf8faf3c56681c9825b64396d2cc96809b9fce05ca75df40f7ead7a8e3df2af16308522e8d3e54880744a8e5593315a85c51ed
RIPEMD128: ff3d17f624b57b9fac94bbfd8c9f8133
RIPEMD160: 56f0e7e4e82a96140ac49b5ed088831c6f653c3a
TIGER128: 99f5fe697ab84a4cedd4116a69a1d72e
TIGER160: 99f5fe697ab84a4cedd4116a69a1d72e19d5817b
TIGER192: 99f5fe697ab84a4cedd4116a69a1d72e19d5817bfa37a8dd
GOST: d6fbc51050b32f2c729ca6cb49ef63092167cfbf1759d16b7dc450d2f068b4a3

Checksums generated by ExactFile 1.0.0.15
www.exactfile.com
6/04/2009 10:21:26 PM

G:\AUDIO\DVD_A files\Diana Krall-When I Look In Your Eyes (BR)\track-01-03[1]-04-[L-R]-24-96000.wav
155959748 bytes

ADLER32: e64cfa21
CRC32: f932ce68
MD2: 518828ba0a8d3e10a53a59d0fd0929cd
MD4: ab2817ba754e9f329801fcf2831ad482
MD5: 2a13bcd4dad0b2b8bfabe05723bffd9e
SHA1: 4a25ab383e8b95726fff8326f4cad1ea8d3ef85d
SHA256: 164883e68431dae206c2543945957dad62824a4141e9ed5c65a2540b297f572e
SHA384: 24f5a019ee2aabf6fbd0a1bf7f7d56213ee74954a9f379a2cb5d47838dccd7e03e95de87e4433c36e3062d34bd2b5507
SHA512: 2a3012d94bceff837ffea8a86bbf8faf3c56681c9825b64396d2cc96809b9fce05ca75df40f7ead7a8e3df2af16308522e8d3e54880744a8e5593315a85c51ed
RIPEMD128: ff3d17f624b57b9fac94bbfd8c9f8133
RIPEMD160: 56f0e7e4e82a96140ac49b5ed088831c6f653c3a
TIGER128: 99f5fe697ab84a4cedd4116a69a1d72e
TIGER160: 99f5fe697ab84a4cedd4116a69a1d72e19d5817b
TIGER192: 99f5fe697ab84a4cedd4116a69a1d72e19d5817bfa37a8dd
GOST: d6fbc51050b32f2c729ca6cb49ef63092167cfbf1759d16b7dc450d2f068b4a3

[allenf]

Yep, they're exactly the same.

[Deleted]

UPDATE.
I have just finished re-ripping the 3rd of my Diana Krall DVD-As to the HDD, using DVD Audio Explorer 2008. I just listened to a couple of tracks from the original rip of "Diana Krall-The Look Of Love" done in November 2008 using my Pioneer write and EAC, and the rip made this morning using the BluRay writer.
It simply was no contest, the new version is markedly better.
As usual, check sums are identical.
A possible reason for the difference was suggested to me by a prominent member from diyAudio forum. (attached)





"This sounds to me very like a jitter issue, reflecting the fact that the higher frequency of a blue ray system requires a tighter jitter control regime."

[Deleted]

UPDATE.
Up till now, I have tried to be scrupulously fair, by ripping both the Blu-spec disc and the normal version of the same CD, to the HDD using E.A.C. and the BluRay writer for both.
After so many people insisted that the files MUST sound the same because the checksums are the same, I decided to re-rip the normal CD version using my Pioneer DVD writer.
After all, if I get the same checksums, (and I did) then the copies "MUST" sound identical when played back from the HDD.
Well, I was not surprised to find that the differences were even more pronounced, and the BluRay extraction of track 17 "Sexual Healing/Marvin Gay" was far superior to the other version. Almost like chalk and cheese !
SandyK

[Deleted]

UPDATE

I made a comparison CD using a 24K Kodak Gold Archival CD , of 9 of each of the tracks from both the Blu-spec and the normal version. The number 1 track was the Blu-spec version , and the number 2 track was the normal CD version,and so on, but this time each of the even numbered tracks were extracted using the Pioneer writer. I did this to try and further highlight the differences, as the disc would eventually be copied to HDDs using normal DVD writers. This method should be just as valid, as files that have the same checksums are supposedly identical sounding.
I forwarded this disc yesterday to a senior moderator in DIYAudio. (Hugo from Belgium), who will pass it around to other qualified members.
I had a visit yesterday by RG member Allan Pagan who brought around his newly working (but not finalised) Silicon Chip ULD2 amplifier. I made Allan a copy of the same disc to take home. We played Allan's copy through his new amplifier, and much to our surprise the differences were quite audible . Because Allan was unfamiliar with my speakers etc., he was unable to pinpoint what the actual differences were, but said that he thought the sound level was higher on the normal CD version. Allan will be doing further listening through his own system when relaxed.
My own impression was that the Blu-spec version had better high treble, and an improved soundstage, with less concentration of sound in the middle area of the soundstage, which would make it appear that the Blu-spec version's volume was a little lower.
Alex

[derekrumble]

I am totally unable to comment on your experiments do to lack of resources and a lack of the right level of understanding (I.E. I am thick)!

However I find the subject fascinating. Please continue to record your observations.

Thanks,

Derek

[Deleted]

UPDATE.
JeffC and myself, have been uploading a few samples for comparison purposes between us. Leo has also downloaded these comparison files. We are all in broad agreement that the BluRay ripped version does indeed sound better, and in fact, we have all identified the same differences between the 2 versions, especially in the area of improved localisation, and the better soundstage. This is definite proof that the dogma that states "if the checksums are identical, then the files must sound identical"
is flawed.
Please note, that these differences are only audible if your PC's audio playback chain is of high enough resolution, or your main loudspeaker system has far above normal resolution, as the recovered audio from affordable CD/DVD players is far below the potential SQ from a HDD based system.
Alex
P.S. I would recommend a good soundcard - SPDIF - a high quality DAC - SC HA with JLH,or Solo SRG etc. to hear these differences. You are most unlikely to hear the BluRay advantage with normal gear. DIYAudio moderator Netlist (Hugo) was unable to hear the subtle differences of the files that Jeff uploaded via his soundcard's analogue output into his monoblocks.
Hugo then went on to claim that statistical analysis showed the files were identical, and as he could not hear any differences, then the files must be identical.
However in his report , this was stated :"Advanced statistical information reveals identical files except for the dynamic range in the first file"
In track 15 BR-BR the histogram shows dynamic range as 108.61dB.The histograms for the other 2 files show a dynamic range of 88.89dB
Any member who feels that their PC playback meets these requirements, is invited to PM me for a couple of download links to 2 files from my HDD for comparison.

[Will]

I'm a little surprised that people find it difficult to believe their is a difference between normally recorded CD's, and those recorded on blu-ray hardware.

The improvements in re-recorded CD's was noted back in the late 80's, I think, when Philips released their first domestic CD recorder. The Hifi mags at the time were full of how the CD's sounded better after being recorded on the unit. Probably due to correction of errors in playback of the original and the quality of the 'first of breed' device. It was probably built like a battleship!

Based on these reports, from way back when, why should people be surprised that Blu-ray should give similar results.

I hope that others can remember this/back me up!

(Mind you, to play devil's advocate, the mags, of the same era, also said that CD's sound better when stored in the freezer....)

[Deleted]

(Mind you, to play devil's advocate, the mags, of the same era, also said that CD's sound better when stored in the freezer....)

Will
Perhaps there was a slight grain of truth to that.
Many earlier players used to need laser diode replacements prematurely, and I remember that with some earlier CD players the discs were very warm after coming out of the players.
Alex

[Deleted]

UPDATE.
2 Rock Grotto members have now reported that the files they downloaded have a better soundstage and separation between instruments, as well as better HF definition. 2 other members have also heard these tracks, but thought the BR version was the version that sounded louder to them.They were however not at home when the comparisons were done.
A Sydney DIYAudio member reported a large soundstage from the BR version of "Spinning Wheel-Blood Sweat and Tears" into his main stereo speakers.
The moderator from DIYAudio has now received the CD copy of 9 different musical tracks. I expect a negative report from him, as he was previously unable to hear the subtle differences between the tracks that JeffC uploaded. However, he was only using Analogue Out from his soundcard, instead of the far more revealing SPDIF into a good DAC.
Alex

[Deleted]

SO .FLAC IS LOSSLESS,EH ? OR "Buffalo DAC to the rescue"

www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1812731#post1812731

[Will]

After all the sh1t you copped at DIYAudio, with your observations on bluray-burnt CD's, I bet it was nice to get an unsolicited, independent confirmation that you weren't/don't hear things that don't exist!

[Deleted]

Apr 26, 2009 23:44:13 GMT Will said:

After all the sh1t you copped at DIYAudio, with your observations on bluray-burnt CD's, I bet it was nice to get an unsolicited, independent confirmation that you weren't/don't hear things that don't exist!

Will
Sooner or later, I will have the last laugh over that closed minded
diyAudio Moderator who did such a hatchet job on me,as well as some other extremely sarcastic posters.
The fact is, that there are indeed audible differences, despite what all the various types of checksums may say.You just need a high enough resolution playback system to hear these differences.e.g. A decent Soundcard - SPDIF OUT - A decent DAC - High quality HA. The differences are even more pronounced when you forward copies for others to try, if the supposedly identical sounding files are copied to a USB Memory Pen, instead of going through the losses of optical burning and then recovery by reading the optical data. Leo , JeffC and Nick, can hear these differences too, as can vhfman (Dave) from diyAudio.
Alex