Along these lines, I've always found it annoying that a disc with a minor-looking scratch will cause
audible and jarring read errors played back at 1x on almost every player (strange exception in my
world -- my $500 Oppo universal player, which reads almost any disc, but then is super-sensitive to
external vibrations, so go figure). But, take that scratched disc and rip it in a halfway decent
computer drive, using something like dbPA or EAC. Then burn a new copy on a generic blue-dye
Toyo-Yuden disc. The damn thing will play _flawlessly_ in just about any player.
I do not know this to be a fact but one semi-knowledgable person told me that early CDs made from
1630 masters containing insert edits had baked-in problems around those edits. But, if you rip and
then re-burn that same data, the baked-in errors are gone. This sounds like BS to me, but it's not
the strangest thing I ever heard about U-Matic digital masters.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clark Johnsen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Audibility of 44/16 ?
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Don Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I had an early player on which, if you ripped a CD to a CD-ROM, the copy
>> sounded better than the original.
> As a rule, almost any CD-R sounds better than the original -- although
> certainly this has to be a function of the player. Which means that all
> (most) players have a design shortfall.
>> I think this was because the copy disc was lighter. The designer
>> underestimated how much power was needed to spin the discs. The result
>> was a drop in voltage supply to the audio output circuit. (In my
> That may well be as well.
>> Don Cox
>> [log in to unmask]