i’m not doubting this 
i am interested in what the extraction and re writing software is doing, hence the request to rip both CDs (using some bit perfect ripping software) and comparing the two
either the written CD is easier to read and less error riddled so not hitting the player error correction algorithms so hard (though your comment re the dmp and dss suggests maybe otherwise) or the software is changing the bits (nowt wrong with that if you like the result, same as a bhk pre is changing the transfer function between source and power amps - if it sounds good, do it!).
I’m afraid I’m going to have to update my previous position on polishing the surface and felt marker on the edge of the CD tweak. Although this tweak had worked in the past with other digital front ends, I mentioned in a previous post I thought I didn’t hear much difference when this tweak was applied and played back using the DMP transport and DSD Sr.
Picked up a used copy of Simon and Garfunkel’s greatest Hits. I absolutely love the music, but the recording is absolutely hideous, so I applied the aforementioned tweak. This time however I used a black felt marker because I no longer had one of those audiophile green felt markers lying around. Lo and behold the CD is now somewhat listenable. Noticeably smoother with greater definition and clarity.
1 Like
Wow. A black felt tip pen fixed a bad CD mastering.
Remind me to not taking ANYTHING you say seriously!!
I wouldn’t and didn’t use the word fix, but it definitely improved the overall sound of the CD.
What does the disc look like after you use the marker?
Perhaps you’re introducing errors into the disc that’s making the DMP work harder to read it, and perhaps correct for errors present on the disc… 
Dude, we aren’t talking about cleaning dirty discs or polishing away scratches. This guy is talking about taking a perfectly good and clean disc and making it sound better. So, no, it actually can’t be…
Nope. It’s all in your head…
https://positive-feedback.com/Issue43/green_pen.htm
Sony/Japan Green Label SACDs
Remember the controversy over painting the edges of CDs with green felt-tip pens? The aim was to improve sound quality by absorbing stray red laser reflections that might cause jitter in the data read from the disc. Sony’s audio division in Japan is now backing an intriguing project which tests the theory.
A batch of new SACDs from Sony Music has green labels. This is not “green” to help the environment; it’s to help audio quality by lightening the burden on the servo mechanism for the player’s tracking head and to introduce fewer errors for the player’s error correction to handle.
Sony UK’s audio guru, Eric Kingdon, was demonstrating a high-end Sony system at IFA in Berlin, using a green label SACD version of the L.A. Allstars (Birdland: XSCL-10004).
Other green label SACDs include the L.A. Allstars “Afro Blue” (XSCL-10005); Sacred Rhythm of Bali (XSCL-10007); Masayoshi Takanaka “The Man With The Guitar” (XSCL-10006); Allan Holdsworth “All night wrong” (XSCP-1000); and Emi Fujita “Camomile Best Audio” (PCCA-60019 from Pony Canyon).
The project was inspired by Sony’s Japanese audio engineers Takashi Kanai and Motoyuki Sugiura. Sugiura has compared the new green label SACDs with the original SACDs of around five years ago and finds the difference “amazing.” Sony plans public demonstrations at audio shows so that interested consumers can judge for themselves.
Yes, another amazing gimmick meant to sell the same music content all over again just to make money.
It’s okay. I don’t play any music directly from discs any more. I rip all of my CDs and SACDs and they sound better than ever using Roon with HQPlayer.
2 Likes
A hypothesis as to why a burned copy of a CD can sound better than the original commercially pressed version is the reduced corrected reading errors. The player/transport is not working as hard to read the disc and this translates into better sound.
In either case playback is bit perfect but getting there is different.
The decrease in error correction is measurable. Whether this translates to better sound is the question. Some find this readily audible, others deny the possibility.
That is, it is like everything else in audio with the naysayers trying to shout down the proponents.
1 Like
That’s interesting. Just the very act of copying a CD can reduce the errors already present.
It is because a physical CD is an analog device which happens to be carrying digital data.
A CD has pits and lands which the laser reads. These are placed on a commercial CD by stamping them like a vinyl record. When made on a computer, the optical drive burns marks in a dye layer on the CD-R.
The burned CDs are more precise and easier for a transport to read. This means there are less errors and less need for error correction.
4 Likes
If pressed CDs and SACDs are so hard to read, they should be difficult to copy or rip. If the rips are accurate, they should sound better than than discs all the time because there are no errors to correct. This flies in the face of those here that say there discs sound better than rips. Not everyone can be right…
Stamped CDs are not “hard to read,” they simply have more errors than a burned CD. I have already explained why this can matter. By the way, the burned CD will have errors as well, just fewer of them. Redbook specifications assume there will be errors and thus requires data redundancy.
Whether rips sound better than either a stamped or burned CD is an entirely different question, depending on entirely different parameters and variables. I expect it depends on the CD in question, on what the ripped is played back, etc.
You may find your rips sound better than the originals; others, their CDs - and both of you can be correct. That is, yes, everyone can be right.
In any event, prejudging which will sound better based on assumptions alone is often wrong. And one learns absolutely nothing by declaring without listening.
3 Likes
Wise words. I may borrow that phase from time to time.
2 Likes
Oh, I forgot, you are the one that is ALWAYS right on this forum because you rule it with an iron fist…
Several years ago I ripped a disk that was almost unplayable in my transport. However the ripped file sounded really good. The reason is that ripping is not time sensitive as it would be in straight playback. During ripping/copying, a damaged track can be read several times if necessary (by the software) and then a reasonable bit pattern can be constructed. If you’re playing a disk directly, unless the software has a very large buffer, there are time constraints on outputting a signal stream which often is much less than the time necessary for reading a bit stream 2 or more times. Perhaps that is what you’re saying (in the quote above - and if so sorry to butt in) but to my thinking, the ripping/copying process, especially on a dirty or damaged disk, sometimes does lots more work than the straight play option.
3 Likes
Some disks are a real pain to copy or rip. That said, I suspect that rips can sound better than copied disks in some systems and worse in others. If you’re playing a ripped file from a file system vs a CD on a high end transport, the digital paths are different and may produce different results in some system. With the Direct Stream DAC I can’t tell the difference but maybe that’s just my system.
My ripped CD “files” sound better than the original CDs because my digital transport is better. And the data is the same as I rip securely. No magic in it. I’m sure there are CD transports that will sound better reading the CD than my digital transport. But, I’m not putting any more cash into being able to read physical media.
The future is digital transports 