Are copied CDs sonically inferior to the original? (Straits of the Art).

Stereo is on its way out no matter what the traditionalists say. As a very young classical music aficionado (not even 10 years old) I remember the golden ear naysayers throwing up their hands in horror when the LP replaced the 78 record. Then they just threw up when the Stereo LP replaced the monaural LP. And when the CD replaced the Stereo LP, the gnashing of teeth and other things could be heard in the next county. Now the multichannel format is replacing the Stereo CD and the naysayers are predicting dire consequences for all concerned. So why am I writing about an obsolete piece of equipment, the Phillips CDR-778 Audio CD Recorder? One, obsolete doesn't mean no longer useful, and two, there's a claim by some of the subjective weenies that the copied CD is sonically inferior to the original. I decided to check the validity of this claim.

Let me define obsolete. To wit: If it works it's obsolete. Obsolete doesn't necessarily imply no longer useful. Yes, Stereo is obsolete (including the two-channel compact disc), but unlike the Stereo LP, the demise of the Stereo CD will take place over a much longer period of time. Unlike the Stereo LP the Stereo CD is easily made compatible with the new CD players because of the digital formatting. So, although obsolete in the technical sense, the Stereo CD will be around for a long time. And the various subjective claims associated with the Stereo CD will also be around for a long time! My son's purchase of the Phillips CDR-778 Audio CD Recorder gave me a golden opportunity to test the validity of the above mentioned claim.

But first, a description of the Phillips CDR-778. Then we will check out of the claim about the sound of the copied CD being inferior.

The Phillips CDR-778 enables one to make an exact copy of a commercial source CD such as Telarc, Delos, Mapleshade, et al. Or you can make copies of various tracks (compilation) from a source CD, or source CDs. The copied CD is a direct digital transfer, bit for bit, from the original to the copied CD. The CD being recorded upon can be either a CDR-Audio or CDRW-Audio type. The CDR-Audio disc can be recorded on and not erased. The CDRW-Audio CD can be recorded on, erased, and recorded on again; according to Phillips the CDRW-Audio CD is good for a thousand recordings and erasures; the CDRW Audio CD costs about twice as much as the CDR-Audio CD.

The only kicker to duplicating CDs is that the CDR-778 uses the Serial Copy Management System (SCMS) and the instruction manual states: "This means that it is not possible to make a digital copy from a digital copy." Translation: If you make a copy of the copied CD, a second generation copy so to speak, the Phillips CDR-778 does this in the analog domain by converting a digital signal to analog and then converting it back to digital. All my tests were done with first-generation CDs, made from a consumer/store purchased CD.

My son shopped on the Internet and paid a total of $250 for the unit--$300 list minus a $50 manufacturer's rebate. Had he been more patient (youth!) he could have gotten the same unit from--of all places--our local Wal-Mart for a price of $250, minus the $50 rebate, for a bottom line cost of $200. Yes, he could have gone the computer-recording route and saved money on the blank discs (next paragraph). But a stand-alone unit is much more conducive to ease of use, without any fuss or mess, particularly when moving equipment is the norm. There's also the Windows problem with reliability, which is minimized by using a stand-alone piece of equipment.

Note the word "Audio" after the CDR and CDRW. The CDs used for an Audio CD recorder are not the same discs used when recording audio on a computer using a computer CD. The Audio CD recorder is sanctioned by the recording industry (read Sony and Phillips) and their sanctioning is reflected in the higher bottom-line cost of an Audio CD compared to a computer CD. A blank Audio CD (marked as such) will cost quite a bit more than a computer-recordable CD; you're paying a royalty for every CDR-Audio and CDRW-Audio purchased. To make my point: At Best Buy a 3-pack of CDRW-Audio CDs costs $5.99, or essentially $2.00 each. A 10-pack of CD-R Audio CDs costs $9.99, or essentially $1.00 each. I've seen computer CDR blanks priced at 16 cents each and computer CDRW blanks priced at 38 cents each! (Lest there be any question, I tried a computer CD in the Phillips unit but to no avail.)

There's much more to the CDR-778, much more, but space precludes me from giving a thorough description of its operation and workings. More importantly I am here to prove or disprove a claim that there's a difference in the original CD and the copied CD.

Nothing better exemplifies this claim more succinctly than the following quotes from a review of the CDR-778. To wit: "Careful comparison between the digital copy and original source uncovered some interesting results: I could tell the recorded version. Not once but every time." Also, "But put in the CDR recording and the original and yes I could tell one from the other. Swap them between players and yes the difference is there. The original CD had more body and bottom end substance than the recording." Here we go again! I am not picking on the reviewer and will not reveal from where the quotes were taken except to my editor.

So how does one go about proving or disproving the "original sounds better" claim? A first approach is to copy an entire CD and see whether the copied CD shows the same total playing time as the commercial (original) CD. I used the following two CDs for this and all tests that follow. Disc A was Andre Previn's After Hours, with Joe Pass and Ray Brown (Telarc Jazz 83302). Disc B was the RCA/BMG Living Stereo-Gold release of Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade (BMG 09026-68568-2. I choose the RCA because it was a gold CD and Scheherazade is one of my all-time favorites, with RCA's Reiner/Chicago version being one of the. best performances available. I chose the Previn so the (young) musician listening panel and I could hone on with a vengeance to the guitar, piano, and bass.

Two copies each were made of Disc A and Disc B. One copy was with a CDR-Audio disc and the second copy was with a CDRW-Audio disc, that's four copies in all. The copies showed exactly the same playing time as the original CDs. To be exact, 64 minutes/04 seconds for disc A and both copies, and 66 minutes exactly for disc B and both copies. Far from proof positive, but at least we know that the playing time hasn't been shortened or lengthened. Next test.

Using a test CD (Telarc Surround Sound Spectacular, Telarc 3179, disc # 2) I copied test-tone signals (sine wave) of 200, 160, 125, 100, 80, and 62 Hz. What better frequencies than these to check "bottom end substance!" Using a Digital Multimeter (FLUKE model 8060A) I measured the dB sound level (at the speaker terminals) of these various frequencies for the original CD and the two copies. No deviation. There's no fun in listening to test tones, as one might well imagine. I used ear protection during this test and strongly suggest others to use ear protection. I cringe, thinking what the eventual impact on hearing will be, when I hear automobile sound systems being played at levels which are heard an hour before the car comes into sight! Next test.

Configuring my system for a double-blind test, my listening panel and I compared Disc A with both with both of its copies and Disc B with both of its copies. The test results were statistically insignificant, which in the parlance of the street means the listeners couldn't distinguish the originals from the copies. The ultimate test here, as I mentioned above, was a group of five musicians comparing the original Previn CD (CD A) to the two copies. They enjoyed what they were doing, did listening tests over minutes, hours, days, and weeks, and volunteered their services for future double-blind tests! But the testing didn't stop there.

I was bothered by the fact that the reviewer I quoted above didn't seem to be a raving subjective weenie. In fact, just the opposite. His review was informative and devoid of the usual tripe that often characterizes the "golden-ear" individual. Was there a logical reason as to why he may have heard a difference? In the back of my mind I kept hearing David Rich, Peter Aczel, and Tom Nousaine emphasizing how critical sound levels are when comparing two sound sources. Peter Aczel has stated that even a difference of only 0.5 dB between the two sources may be perceived as a difference in sound, with the preference going to the source with the higher dB level. I wondered and took a long hard look at the CDR-775.

One of the controls on the CDR-778 is used to adjust the level of the sound recorded on the copied CD. The level starts at 0 dB (no difference in levels) and can be decreased in 1 dB increments. More importantly this level adjustment is the same as the typical rotary volume control. Because of the configuration of the CDR-778's panel it's very easy to brush up against this control--particularly when inserting a CD--and not be aware of it. I wonder. Did the quoted reviewer possibly brush against the level control accidentally and set the level of the copied CD to a -1dB level or even less? I don't know, but it's a plausible explanation. So why not record something at a lesser dB level than the original (let's say -1dB less) and compare it to the original recording, using the double-blind testing technique to see whether differences were audible?

To ensure that the level control worked as it should I made two copies (CDR-CD and CDRW-CD) of the low-frequency tracks on the Telarc test CD with the level control set at -1dB. I then measured dB level of the frequencies on the copied CDs. They were exactly 1 dB down in level from the same frequencies on the Telarc test CD.

Leaving the level control at -1 dB, I made another complete set of the Previn recording (Disc A) used previously. I then called the listening panel, telling them that I had made new copies, and would appreciate their coming back for another test. Only two could make it but the results were ear- and eye-opening. Both gentlemen scored statistically significant results. One individual got 18 out of 20 correct and the other got 19 out of 20 correct! Yours truly rounded out the top three with 17 out of 20 corrects. This is certainly an indicator of just how important it is to equalize sound levels when comparing two sounds. The lesson here is--as Tom Nousaine has stated--is for audiophiles to take heed when doing comparative listening sessions and the sales person's hand is on the volume control!

Another point: Remember the objective techie naysayers? When the CD first came out, many (but not all) of these individuals stated unequivocally that recording CDs at home would never be possible. The primary reason given was that the CD pits had such close tolerances that only a carefully controlled manufacturing process and a clean room environment would meet the stringent requirements of duplicating CDs; such an environment was not possible in a home setting, or so it was claimed. The more optimistic naysayers said it might be possible--but the price would be so high as to limit CD recording to the big-player recording studios. I'm not going to name names, these claims are behind us. But I do take delight at looking at some of the original CD duplicating hardware selling for in excess of $10,000--and not all that long ago!

The CDR-778 is an inexpensive piece of hardware that does just about anything you'd want to do in duplicating two-channel sound sources; much more than simply duplicating from a source CD. For example, my son uses it to copy tracks from music he has recorded on a stand-alone multi-track HD recorder. Interestingly, the CD made this way can be copied in the digital domain. Translated: The SCMS is inoperative and you can make a digital copy from a digital copy! (The technical staff at Philips didn't know this!)

So forget about that $500 (or more!) interconnect or speaker cable and buy something useful for the small change (by today's standards) of only $200. Unlike with cables and interconnects you'll hear a difference--but only if the copied CD is recorded at a different level from the source CD.

--JMC