What are the good brands of CD-R out there?

A few notes:

Writing on a DVD with a Sharpie cannot harm the disc because the top is a 0.6 mm layer of plastic. CD-Rs are different. Only a layer of lacquer protects the written area. The label ink and a printable surface add more protection, but the CD-R is always more susceptible to chemical damage from writing instruments than a DVD.

Digital Audio CD-Rs differ from data CD-Rs only in a bit number in the ATIP identifying them as suitable for stand-alone stereo recorders. There is no other difference at all. Digital audio CD-Rs cost more because they include levies to offset all the nasty piracy damage caused to artists by people who love the artists' music. The levy money goes to the record companies. They keep it. So who is the real pirate?

CD-Rs cannot sound different from each other theoretically. If they do sound different, it is due to the way a player's error correction works and the type of errors and distribution on the disc. Errors are a function of disc quality, drive quality, and subsequent recording quality that includes dozens of variables. That's why scan scores do not indicate the quality of the disc unless the drive is calibrated. (Calibration drives cost about $3,000.) The scans indicate the quality of playback on the drive being used, and that quality is a composite of all the factors above.

Digital recording is quite a bit different from analogue recording where the differences in the tape media contributed immensely to sound quality. (But here, too, the recording was also determined by bias and equalization settings as well as head geometry.)

The "bluish" CD-Rs use either cyanine or azo-cyanine dyes that are not as stable in heat or light as the phthalocyanine dyes used by most other CD-Rs. The difference these days is small, but it still exists. This is of importance only for anyone who expects CD-Rs to last over several decades.

 

Thanks for the info on disc construction.

With standalone CD players set up to read pressed discs, and the CD-Rs trying to emulate CD performance, is there no difference between the dye types as far as the standalone CD player is concerned? (Apart from longevity)I suppose there isn't, because if there was, we would be using only that type of CD-R for audio!

Just on errors..I work with a lot of 2Mb/sec comms systems and would be very concerned if error rates/values were reported like they are in CDs. Does the data come off a disc asynchronously or are data reading / writing / extraction just very ordinary. I think I need to read up a bit more.

 

Wow, are you sure those CD-R error rates are correct? I burn lots of audio CD's at 2x (I can't stand high-speed-burned audio CD's, I can really hear a difference) and using MAM-A CD's for C1 errors I get 0.03 average; 12 max.; maybe 150 total for the whole disc. So apparently burning at slow speed really does make a big difference in error rates.

On the other hand, I don't put much weight on Nero Quality scores. Their test is flawed because you never get the same results twice with the same disc. And Nero assigns a quality score based on the worst spike on the graph, not the overall disc.

 

The error rates are only as they are reported by the tool. I specifically bought a benqDW1650 so I could do some error numbers on CD-Rs. If you look on the previous page you will see a list of error counts from CD-Rs burned on my laptop with "Create Disk" in Nero CD-DVD speed and then read on the Benq.Only 1 of each disc type done, but with the same burner, in the same PC, with the same data file.

The results you are getting (is that a Mitsui Gold Archive disc?) seem much more in the range that I would expect. What drive are you scanning with?

 

Incidentally,

Here is a scan of a "new" pressed CD.



I figured if I was getting error rates around or less than the number on a CD-R as a pressed disc, it would be OK.

Thanks.

 

@Platy 767
those verbatim Vinyl Cdr's have actually disappeared from the place I was buying them lets hope they have not been scrapped/discontinued.
I had this theory that they were good for audio because they were designed for music and not stand-alone (typical audio-discs).
anyway, give them a try oneday if you see them

 

I use the silver MAM-A discs (the real ones; I hear there are fake ones roaming about) but I also get similar results with most any good quality discs like TY or Ricoh (which incidentally I consider these 3 brands to have the best audio quality). I use a Lite-On XJ-HD166S DVD-ROM drive for scans, maybe not the best choice but I still think some of those error numbers are way too high for CD media.

 

The numbers are in the same ballpark as scans I see on other CD-R related sites.

I went for the Benq - just for scanning, based on a comment on the other site.

Basically it was recommeded above plextor,liteon, some other drive or flipping a coin.

The liteon drive that was being being discussed at the time, SHW-160P6S, apparently does not report C1 errors correctly.

All this is second hand - not my comments.

Anyhow, I appreciate your comments on the MAM-A and other discs, and I'll try some.

 

There is no difference in dye types in terms of reading. There is a difference in terms of writing--phthalocyanine reacts very quickly and has a "short write" strategy while cyanine and azy-cyanine dyes react more slowly and have a "long" write strategy. The strategy is based on the power levels applied to the write laser. Phthalocyanine dyes react better at faster speeds while the cyanine and azo-cyanine work better at slower speeds because of the reaction times of the dyes. Recording at 2X on a phthalocyanine dye is not a good idea because of jitter rates and poorly defined edges. MAM-A uses the Mitsui phthalocyanine dye; so 2X and MAM-A discs are not a good match for jitter or other disc parameters.

The errors reported as C1 or C2 errors are uncorrected errors sent to the Reed-Solomon error correction circuitry. All of those errors are corrected. They do not determine the actual sound quality if the error correction circuitry is "perfect," but large bursts of errors or error patterns can modulate the circuitry of poorly designed circuits in a way that may be audible.

 

Thanks JoeRyan,
So...we are better to use a CD-R media / burner combination that results in the lesser number of errors? We should use a combination that reduces the "risk" of having bursts that overload/ overrate error correction circuitry? Sounds good to me (pun intended!)

Even my non statistical, one off scanning has identified that my burner does better, that is, reports lower error counts, with media other than media from CMC Magnetics. These CMC discs have been labelled as Imation, TDK, Verbatim.

Better results have come from Taiyo Yuden, Verbatim, and Ritek manufactured media. The trouble is these also have been labelled from TDK (TY), Verbatim (Verbatim), and Maxell (Ritek).

I tried the Verbatim "Vinyl" CD-R and it's also a CMC disc - similar results to the others from that manufacturer.

 

@platy767
if I remember correctly you are aussie I recommend you try the latest TDK 'snap & save' media they are currently promotional they come in a 50 pack from DSE and others.
They work well for me and this might sound stupid but they have a wonderful surface to write on - remember the TDK blueish discs from those 100 tins had an almost sun-faded blue surface? These latest tdks to me look and write wonderfully.
just a lame observation I know.
the DSE site had these discs as data so I actually gave TDK australia a phonecall to confirm they are also audio-suited they said Yes.
I know a 50 pack might be too many but if you want a wise choice.
anyway, trying to help actually I might add a link to the discs:
btw they are also on the tdk australia site under promotional
sorry if this link is long cannot be helped

http://www.dse.com.au/cgi-bin/dse.storefront/45c7ea100655ad4e2743c0a87f9c0709/Product/View/XM0952

 

Medium/drive combinations that provide the fewest errors both after recording and long-term are the best choice. However, that does not necessarily mean that those same low error rates will appear on other reading drives. A disc that has low error rates when scanned on its recording drive may show higher error rates when read on a different drive, and these rates may actually be higher than those from a disc that looked worse when it was recorded and played on the same recording drive. There are a great many factors involved, but generally the differences will not be great.

If sound quality is critical, I would put the effort into getting a great disc player with excellent error correction and finding a good combination of recording drive and disc. Poor error correction can make even a near perfect disc sound flawed.

 

The TDK VeloCD I used to use made audio CD's (with CMC media) that buzzed & crackled. I don't use CMC media anymore not even with my Plextor 716-A DVDRW & Emprex CDR writers. Nope never again. Ritek works great with both drives as does TY. Those are the only DVD & CD media I'll ever buy plus Verbatim for +R DL.

 

Added the Verbatim Vinyl results of test burns into my table along with another real burn on a Verbatim LightScribe - quite a difference from the one brand.

I want to see how the MAM-A disks that piano632 recommended end up. I should have some later in the month.

 

Oops, that table turned out larger in life than I expected! Hopefully it's not too intrusive.

 

Done some more burning and scanning. Added the Verbatim "Vinyl", TDK XA80 Audio, MAM Gold (which indicated a poor result for me, particularly from 60 minutes to the end, and cost $4 a disc), and a couple of That's (TY) discs. The results are in the table following. As binkie7 suggested, I added the burner and burn speed details. All scans were done on a Benq DW1650.

I had decided that the Verbatim LightScribe (coding as Verbatim in Nero CDSpeed) were the way to go. The error average was the lowest and the LS feature let me burn labels as well. The problem is that when I bought my cakebox of Verbatim LightScribes today, what do you think was inside? As soon as I removed the packaging and looked at the burn side of the disc, I knew I was in trouble. No lovely Blue Azo surface, just a yellow/silver colour. They are CMC Magnetics discs! I included a scan of a test burn in the table (not too bad). I'm quite disapointed the discs were not what I previously had. These CMC discs are in a pack of 30 whereas I had bought packs of 10 before and got the Verbatim Verbatims.

 

brand doesnt matter, I have always used the cheapest disc and never coaster. Burn speed low to mid...

 

I've been burning CDs for over a decade now . . and in that period of time, I've burned countless discs . .

The CDs that I've had the greatest success with are the round ones with the hole in the center . . .

 

And no doubt you got them right side up 50% of the time!

Sorry...I agree with you. Go with what works.
Anyway, I had some fun(?) doing the scans.