Strange phenomenon. Can you explain this to me?

[haryy]

Here's the story. I received a cd i mastered and compared the original master with the extracted wav. The files nulled. BUT.. When i play the cd it sounds different. As soon as i extract it as wav, it sounds like the original and nulls!
Here i uploaded the frequency analyzer for both files..One is while the cd plays (cda) and the other is the one that was extracted as wav with Reaper. Remember that when i extract the cda as wav, it nulls with the original file (the one before i sent the ddp to the plant!).
Can you tell me what's going on?

[Red Mastering]

are you on mac, pc ?
what soft you use to play music ?
itunes ?, if yes, there's answer as itunes had some eq and widener on as default

[haryy]

Originally Posted by Red Mastering

are you on mac, pc ?
what soft you use to play music ?
itunes ?, if yes, there's answer as itunes had some eq and widener on as default

Pc and windows media player which plays back the same file both as cda and as wav.

[TranscendingM]

Hey haryy, I believe somebody else posted this experience as well a few years ago and I went on to describe this experience that happened to a friend of mine. In a nutshell, CD quality matters. Most off-the-shelf consumer brands will yield these sonic issues. Some dup plants will skimp on the cd's they use. It drove my friend crazy because like you, the files once extracted nulled against the original. But when the disc (a copy from the dup plant) actually played back it overtly sounded different compared to the master or even to the master wave file. We listened on a bunch of different players against the master. Then I burned his original master wave file onto a yuden disc and compared to the master and presto. It sounded the same. Needless to say, he isn't going back to that company to press his cd's.
Hope that helps..

[Joelistics]

Could it be your cd player's converter that adds to the difference in sound you hear or are you using the same converter? Elaborate on your set up a bit..

[haryy]

I'm using my home laptop and its dvd-rom device. Funny thing is that cda sounds better.
I still have to do the test in the studio but besides any expectation bias that i may have, how do you explain the graph difference?
Is there any other player with a good analyzer to compare again?

Can someone do a similar test with a cda and its extracted wav using WMP ?

[shelterr]

Cd's that I get from bands that are replicated always sound different than the master files I sent to the plant. A little brighter and thinned out, but I generally like it. Like a weird glossy quality. I've always assumed that it was just part of the "cd" sound.

[Adam Dempsey]

If I understand correctly, you're comparing a replicated CD-DA (not CD-R) made via a DDP Master, against the original file, both played back from WMP and via the same DAC?
History of this issue has tended to point towards clock jitter at the mastering stage* of replication (something well documented by the late Roger Nichols but the link I bookmarked no longer works as the site has been re-built). There is some discussion here fwiw.
Suffice to say that if it is that, then it's no longer common as the (apparent) re-clocking that occurred improved with the DCA system from that of "computer-spec" to "audio-spec". Only way to know would be to try another replicator. If you've replicated via a broker then I dare say they may be oblivious to any of this.

*(where in this case the distinction between mastering & pre-mastering matters).

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by Adam Dempsey

If I understand correctly, you're comparing a replicated CD-DA (not CD-R) made via a DDP Master, against the original file, both played back from WMP and via the same DAC?
History of this issue has tended to point towards clock jitter at the mastering stage* of replication (something well documented by the late Roger Nichols but the link I bookmarked no longer works as the site has been re-built). There is some discussion here fwiw.
Suffice to say that if it is that, then it's no longer common as the re-clocking that occurs improved with the DCA systems (which introduced DDP) from that of "computer-spec" to "audio-spec". Only way to know would be to try another replicator. If you've replicated via a broker then I dare say they may be oblivious to any of this.

There is no clock on a CD. No clock, no re-clocking, no j*tter.

Whatever it is you can rule that out. That doesn't mean something isn't going on.


DC

[TranscendingM]

Like I said, get your hands on some quality cd-r and burn the master wave and see for yourself.

[Adam Dempsey]

Originally Posted by dcollins

There is no clock on a CD. No clock, no re-clocking, no j*tter.

Whatever it is you can rule that out. That doesn't mean something isn't going on.

Of course, just referring to a case in which the only variable was (apparently) the audio stream being re-clocked at the LBR. Wish I could dig up his tale...

[Thomas W. Bethe]

We sent in a CD to a local replicator. He uses Microboard duplicators and did the job on T-Y CDs. The original and the copies did not sound the same but they nulled. The problem turned out to be the way the CDs are burned. He was burning them as DATA discs and when he changed his settings to CDDA burning everything sounded the same as the master. Not sure why the difference but I could clearly hear the difference. This has been noted here before on other posts.

FWIW and YMMV

[Laarsø]

Originally Posted by Adam Dempsey

...where in this case the distinction between mastering & pre-mastering matters...

The distinction always matters. You know, in the Class 100 Clean Room they are technically only doing what they do in the lacquer cutting room - namely, "grandmothering." Whereas, "mastering" - where the "father" is grown on top of the "grandmother," is only done by a galvanizer. Yes, the lacquer cutter scratches something called a "lacquer master" while grandmotherink. But the mixist makes a "master tape" and, yet, for some reason, doesn't call the mix session, "mastering." Ergo, no one is "mastering," here, unless he wears an apron and knows the two elemental ingredients of stannous chloride. Get your helix out and see which way it turns!



Cheersø,
Laarsø

[Rob Murray]

If they're nulling in wav, it's gotta be a difference in playback.

You're playing them both from WMP same converter/clock etc? Definitely nulls 100% no difference in dither, not a single tick, hiss etc. when gained up? If so my guess is there's got to be something going on in how WMP handles playback of the different formats/mediums. Try using another application, or comparing with a version of your wav burned to CD.

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by Laarsø

The distinction always matters. You know, in the Class 100 Clean Room they are technically only doing what they do in the lacquer cutting room - namely, "grandmothering." Whereas, "mastering" - where the "father" is grown on top of the "grandmother," is only done by a galvanizer. Yes, the lacquer cutter scratches something called a "lacquer master" while grandmotherink. But the mixist makes a "master tape" and, yet, for some reason, doesn't call the mix session, "mastering." Ergo, no one is "mastering," here, unless he wears an apron and knows the two elemental ingredients of stannous chloride. Get your helix out and see which way it turns!

You should just pry the "k" key off your keyboard and call it a day.

And we call it "CD Mastering."


DC

[DrFrankencopter]

Perhaps it can be attributed to different error correction schemes between the cda, and wav playback.


Cheers

Kris

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by DrFrankencopter

Perhaps it can be attributed to different error correction schemes between the cda, and wav playback.

Extremely unlikely, as un-corrected errors on CDR are almost unheard of. I think I've seen maybe two ever on newly burned discs.


DC

[jamesp]

If this is using the built in audio interface in your computer I suspect that playing the .wav routes the audio through the DAC on your interface while playing the .cda routes the audio through the DAC on your CD/DVD drive.

Any differences in sound between different data identicl CD's or between a CD and the master point to a problem in the playback chain - usually a CD player DAC that is sensitive to power supply noise.

James.

[Laarsø]

Originally Posted by dcollins

You should just pry the "k" key off your keyboard and call it a day.

How would I talq about the qué-System, or qué-2 glass grandmotherinq , or Qush Audio, Qué. R. Smith (galvanics guru), Jacq the Bear, Bob Qatz, a hard disq, or a floppy disq , to name a few? Not to mention how you will be able to noe chkow I am soundinq?

Originally Posted by dcollins

And we call it "CD Mastering."

I do, too... Only, it depends on what "it" means.




For the records , everyone readink this thread is always only doink premasterink. The Clean Room makes a "glass master," but this is not sturdy enough for pressinks. A CD-R, still on this hand, as well as a DDPi (grippink hand), is only a pre-clone of the quaintly-named glass master. Verily I say to Thee, the galvanizer does actual mastering which is able to make copies physically. So, everyone is premasterink prior to chavink this father pulled from a grandmother disc. Why the reluctance to conform to this nomenclature? What is at stake? Pride? Is too sudden if pegged to the term which names a subsequent stage of production. Calm down, everyone, and get back to your premasterink sessions. Or, drop a sack of pennies in your bath tub and start spinnink grandmothers.





Cheersø,
Laarsø

[Laarsø]

Originally Posted by dcollins

And we call it "CD Mastering."

People who don't want to believe that Laarsø is right about sayink always
"premaster" may want to reread "Mastering Audio" by Bob Katz. In spite of the title, which is vernacular pander to the unwashed (whip that song into shape, gurl), Chapter 1 starts out with a flow chart showing: "Compact Disc Project: From Conception to Manufacturink."


The fourth step is called, (wait for it...) "Premastering" (done by the Artist, Producer, and "Mastering Engineer"). The output of this session is called, "Premaster: Tape or Disc or File for Server"


So, even though it is commonplace for the premasterink clerk to call herself a "Mastering Engineer," even Mr. K-System admits that the thing they are working on is a premaster - so they are definitely _not_ doink CD Mastering. Mastering of CDs is done where they make the master (which is the "father" plate). The glass master is a cute name, but the capable metalizer has other plans for this pre-Father lady-disc. She is a glass mistress!


Again, I call on all honest mouse-clickers out there in Gear Slut land to stop frontink they are masterink when they are premasterink. It's hard to tone down the self-aggrandizement, I know. But, seriously, it makes everyone who keeps doink it look like they have incomplete conception of what their role in production is(n't).

You know, there are no long-form billionaires (still). Only milliardaires!

Cheersø,
Laarsø

[Rob Murray]

[*Correction* This is irrelevant since I noticed you were responding to the term "CD Mastering" but I still stand by the statement that just because it's a premaster for CD doesn't make the term mastering engineer wrong.]

Technically sorta kinda...

(this is really an argument of semantics)
That's all good and well in a world where all we do is CD premastering. I would argue in our current paradigm, and certainly in the direction it's moving, we are in fact creating the digital master from which all else is created. Whether it be CD, Vinyl, MP3 and so forth, they are all created from the files created in our studios. A large part of my client base doesn't seem to even know what the final format will be. They might start with a digital EP, and if all goes well that becomes a full digital record, becomes vinyl, becomes CD. Yes it might be a CD-premaster, but it's the master recording that walks out the door. Any format, any dupe (assuming single version, not multiple masters) is made from that file.

Records aren't necessarily manufactured anymore, there isn't always a physical master to create, there is though a first generation file from which digital copies were spawned, this is what we're creating. Not updating the vernacular with the times will make our conversations even more confusing down the line. Do we want to start looking looking like the AFM with references to phonograph recordings everywhere because it was correct once upon a time?

[GeorgeZ]

It can be a problem with a preemphasis flag stored in TOC of CD as a result of error in a burning software or during reading of the CD in a plant. We had several claims for different sound of CD-Audio discs compared to WAV files. All such CDs contained this flag set on - some hardware and software players then changed the sound according to the specification of the preemphasis procedure. Now we always ask customer whether he really wants to let this flag set on or not and it is only a mistake. We are able to change the DDPs to a regular CD-Audio without preemphasis.

More info you can find here:

Pre-emphasis - Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase
CD/DAT with pre-emphasis: how to de-emphasize correctly? - SH Forums
EAC Ripping Guide

I hope it helps you with your problem.

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by GeorgeZ

It can be a problem with a preemphasis flag stored in TOC of CD as a result of error in a burning software or during reading of the CD in a plant. We had several claims for different sound of CD-Audio discs compared to WAV files. All such CDs contained this flag set on - some hardware and software players then changed the sound according to the specification of the preemphasis procedure. Now we always ask customer whether he really wants to let this flag set on or not and it is only a mistake. We are able to change the DDPs to a regular CD-Audio without preemphasis.

I think folks are talking about relatively subtle differences here.

De-emphasis is roughly -10dB at 10kHz....



DC

[Laarsø]

Originally Posted by Rob Murray

...
That's all good and well in a world where all we do is CD premastering. I would argue in our current paradigm, and certainly in the direction it's moving, we are in fact creating the digital master from which all else is created...

Here's the deal: with digital files, there is no master and no dub. Only clones. Clones. Tribbles. Clones. Indistinguishable (not squishable) _clones_! Darn things are too robust to describe as master or dub. It doesn't even matter which came first. But the clone that makes its way to the factory is a premaster. Indeed, all files which are clones of the premaster are premasters! In fact, it's not certain that all of your digital audio files won't be (re)metalized at some point in the future, so all digital audio files are technically premasters. None of them are masters, since none of them have yet been (again) metalized. Simple.

Originally Posted by Rob Murray

Whether it be CD, Vinyl, MP3 and so forth, they are all created from the files created in our studios.

Each format can be made from a premaster. Don't worry; it'll only be too soon if it sounds bad.

Originally Posted by Rob Murray

A large part of my client base doesn't seem to even know what the final format will be. They might start with a digital EP, and if all goes well that becomes a full digital record, becomes vinyl, becomes CD. Yes it might be a CD-premaster, but it's the master recording that walks out the door. Any format, any dupe (assuming single version, not multiple masters) is made from that file.

When you're done mixing to ATR tape, it's the master recording that walks out the door. But, you were only mixink! No one says Joe Chicarelli just mastered our album when he was sittink at pretty API console all day. Similarly, whoever was not standink in front of a bath tub all day was not masterink - simple. Here's the kicker - the master tape is used to make the premaster file ...which is either shared, prematurely (got time for a quickie?), or is used to make the glass mistress... which is used to make the master (father) plate...

Originally Posted by Rob Murray

Records aren't necessarily manufactured anymore, there isn't always a physical master to create, there is though a first generation file from which digital copies were spawned, this is what we're creating.

Just because one hasn't used a file to manufacture a CD yet doesn't mean that the premaster has become a defacto "master." It's _still_ a premaster, even if it dies that way. If I snap that kid's neck while he's still in trainink, Mr. Miyagi isn't goink to say, well, we'll just say he was already master.

Originally Posted by Rob Murray

Not updating the vernacular with the times will make our conversations even more confusing down the line.

Your idea of solvink conversational confusion is to embrace a prevalent lie! You are merely tryink to explain misuse of term that is done by wannabees pretendink to be involved with "mastery." But the blasé term, mastering, has never actually been about "mastery." There are tonnes of bad masters. Even ones made by normally competent clerks.

Originally Posted by Rob Murray

Do we want to start looking looking like the AFM with references to phonograph recordings everywhere because it was correct once upon a time?

Vinyl is alive and well. And you don't have to use the treble clef, just because AFM do ([url=http://www.afm.org/]/url]). However, I think it would behoove us to limit our descriptions of our relative contributions to that which we are actually contributink, rather than to coopt the name of a subsequent stage of manufacturink. A digital audio file is a CD premaster - or it's a CD extract - even if it only gets downloaded. Everyone, truly, is sharing "unfinished" work, if it has only been premastered.



Cheersø,
Laarsø

[lu432]

Vinyl is still alive and well, and still paying a lot of peoples paychecks.

[Rob Murray]

Never said vinyl isn't alive and well. Just referring to the fact if you ever look at an AFM contract the term used is still "phonograph recording" for all sound recordings no matter what the actual format...

like this www.local802afm.org/wage/phonosummary.pdf