Data cdr's?

[Jhill]

I just bought some tdk 80 min cdr's. I notice thet say data cdr's on the side of the package? Whats the diffrerence betwen these and regular cdr's? I will still be able to put music on these right? I would open it and find out but I want to be sure before I open the package.
Thanks

 

[BD231]

There identical, one just says music and the other data

 

[Shooters]

I was under the impression that "music CD-Rs" only hold digital music and are to be used with stand alone, set top CD recorders while "data CD-Rs" hold digital music and computer data and are to be used in computer CDRWs. I didn't think the two types were interchangleable with the recorder.

 

[BD231]

<<I was under the impression that "music CD-Rs" only hold digital music and are to be used with stand alone, set top CD recorders while "data CD-Rs" hold digital music and computer data and are to be used in computer CDRWs. I didn't think the two types were interchangleable with the recorder. >>

Nope. The disks are *EXACTLY* the same. TDK CD-R's dont say music anywhere on the actual disk, just the package .

 

[Oyeve]

You coulld burn data and audio cdrs in a PC but only audio cdrs in a stereo cd recorder. I think is because the RIAA specced it out for standalone recorders so they can charge more for blank audio cdr media.

 

[CZroe]

Believe it or not, but they are not the same. The trend started when reject CDs were labeled as being "Made for Audio" when truthfully, they were "only suitable for audio and not suitable for data." Perhaps some trendsetter has come in and defined reflectivity and quality standards for "Audio" CDs, but the fact remains that they don't have to be good enough to reliably hold data to earn the "Audio CD" rating. Back in '98, they were literally charging twice as much for lower grade CDs because people really thought they were "special purpose" CDs!

 

[Gunbuster]

A "audio" CDR has an embedded code that allows home audio component recorders to use it

A stand alone music cd recorder wont take a data cd, you can thank the RIAA for that

 

[HappyFace]

Before today, I thought that all CDRs are created equal. I'll have to inspect my CDR purchases more carefully from now on.

 

[Workin']

<< Believe it or not, but they are not the same. The trend started when reject CDs were labeled as being "Made for Audio" when truthfully, they were "only suitable for audio and not suitable for data." Perhaps some trendsetter has come in and defined reflectivity and quality standards for "Audio" CDs, but the fact remains that they don't have to be good enough to reliably hold data to earn the "Audio CD" rating. Back in '98, they were literally charging twice as much for lower grade CDs because people really thought they were "special purpose" CDs! >>

That's completely false. The ONLY difference between "data" and "audio" CD-R's is that the "audio" blanks have a flag set indicating they are for use in a stand-alone stereo component-style CD recorder. The flag signifies that a 3% royalty has been paid to the recording industry whores for the privelege of copying your own music. So anyway they are definitely *NOT* the same.

If anything, audio CD's need to be HIGHER quality than data CD's, since the CD-audio format has minimal error-correction capabilities, while data formats have fairly robust error-correction. But at any rate, in practice neither kind of disc is "better" than the other. Use the type appropriate for the recorder you are using. So if you are burning the CD-R's on your PC, use data blanks. If you are using your stereo component CD recorder, use audio blanks (actually in this case you have no choice).

 

[BD231]

Not the same eh?. I guess I'll have to give The Screen Savers show on tech TV a call then, they stated there was absolutely no phisical difference.

 

[Oyeve]

<< since the CD-audio format has minimal error-correction capabilities, while data formats have fairly robust error-correction >>



That is a completely false and opposite statement. Audio cds have MUCH BETTER error correction than data cds. yu can pop a pin straight through and audio cd and most players will play fine. If you pop a pin through a data disc it is toast (no, not MAC cdr ). Take some audio cds, I bet if you hold it up to a strong light you can actually see little tiny holes in the coating yet they play fine right? DATA cds need to be as good as possible.

 

[CQuinn]

<< Not the same eh?. I guess I'll have to give The Screen Savers show on tech TV a call then, they stated there was absolutely no phisical difference. >>



I think I remember that call, and for recording on a PC CDRW drive, there is no difference
(which basically answered the question that the caller had). It is only if you have one of those set top CD recorder boxes
that checks for the extra flag in the ATIP header on the CD that you might have problems.
The ATIP header is manufactured separately from the media of the CD-R, so technically it is not the media that is different, it
is the way that the Recorder treats the media that is the issue.

 

[CQuinn]

Oyeve,

CD are burned from the center to the outside edge, if you pop a pin thru
either in the right place (away from the burned area, or at the outer edge of
the burn) then both are equally readable. If you scratch off a significant
enough amount of the surface they are both toast.

CDs by themselves don't do error correction, period.
It is the burner that does the error correction on the data that
is being placed on the CD. This is dependent on the format technique and
speed used as the data is written to the CD.

Audio CD = a series of 1s and 0s that is read back as digital audio.

Data CD = a series of 1s and 0s that can be read back as many types
of data and many different formats.

Its all data, but the Audio CD is a sub-set of the overall idea of
burning pits and lands onto the CD surface.



<< Take some audio cds, I bet if you hold it up to a strong light you can
actually see little tiny holes in the coating yet they play fine right? >>



Those "tiny holes" are the pits in a pressed CD, you can see the same
thing holding a commercial data CD up to the light and looking real close.
Those holes don't go all the way thru, they only need to be a few microns
thick so the laser from the CD-Reader can sense a difference in the
surface of the CD that it reads as a one or a zero.
CD-Rs and CD-RWs use a special Dye that is burned to have the same effect
as the pits do on a pressed (commercial) CD.

Audio CDs only need to play back at 1x speed to work, so in a sense they
don't need as much error correction for reading from. But for making
music CDs it is recommended that you use a brand of media that can
take a burn better, giving you a more distinct difference between the
pits and lands on the CD surface, otherwise the player can read the
information differently coming off the burned CD, which can make differences
in the way the music sounds on the copy. This is commonly reffered to
as jitter and CD recording software and burners are built to used
special techniques to eliminate jitter and make copies sound as good as
their originals as possible. So in a way Workin is right.

 

[Jeff7]

I have been able to play regular CDR's on almost any standalone player. The DVD player we just got doesn't take CDR's - it actually states that CDR's may be damaged if they are inserted. Otherwise, my car CD-player (not CD-RW compatible), two portable CD-players, a boombox type CD-player, and an old 16x non-multiread CD-ROM drive were all able to read music off of a standard CDR. The extra cost of the "digital audio" things is probably the RIAA's attempt to get back some revenues lost by pirated music. I still think that the artists should sell the music right off their sites - even charging 25 or 50 cents per song would probably generate more profit than by going through the recording industry. End rant.

 

[Workin']

<< they stated there was absolutely no phisical difference >>

Well, there is no physical difference (I didn't say there was), the only difference is that there is a short code in an unwritable area of the disc that designates it as useable in an audio-only recorder.

It is absolute fact that audio data contains very little error-correction capability. The player is capable of "fiilling in" missing parts in a relatively inaudible way - but the exact data may not be played back. Data, however, is written with specific error-correction data (CRC checksum, etc.) that ensures the data is reconstructed exactly.

Look at it this this way - which is more of a problem: 10 milliseconds of Britney Spears filled in with noise or a spreadsheet filled with zeroes instead of numbers.

<< The extra cost of the "digital audio" things is probably the RIAA's attempt to get back some revenues lost by pirated music >>

As I posted before, the extra cost is due in part to a 3% royalty charged to cover "pirating losses". However, the royalty is only 3% of the blank media's wholesale cost - the rest of the cost difference is a little thing called profit for the CD-R manufacturer.

And audio component CD recorders can play back any CD-R - they just can't record on data CD blanks.

 

[SilentRunning]

Read all about it here.

As Seen on Roxio:

On a recent stroll through a local mega-warehouse-store, I stumbled upon pallet-loads of blank CDs, stacked to the rafters-enough to convert my giant LP collection several times over. But so many types! Computer grade CD-Rs in 74 minute and 80 minute lengths, rewritable CD-RW discs, and what's this? CD-Rs "For Music!" They cost a bit more, but look: They're "for music!" If I were a true audiophile, I'd spend the extra buck for higher-fidelity sound, right? Wrong!

Let's get this straight: Don't buy "For Music" or "Music Only" blank media to use with Roxio software and your computer-based CD burner. These blank discs aren't specially-formulated for music, nor will they sound better than "data-grade" CD-Rs. But they cost more-up to twice as much per disc.

"For Music" blanks are just for use with standalone recorders that hook up to your stereo, and the extra cost is a royalty to songwriters for the privilege of copying their CDs. These recorders check the blank CD's "Disc Application Code." If the blank is marked with the "for music" Application Code, recording is allowed. If not, recording is disabled. Computer-based recorders don't care about the "for music" code, so these more expensive blanks are unnecessary. In fact, in some cases they won't work at all.

 

[Oyeve]

<< Those "tiny holes" are the pits in a pressed CD, you can see the same >>





I know what the pits look like. On many audio cds, there are holes that are actually defects. Some audio cds have more than others. The industry acknowledges this. If I have time I will find you some proof. I have done many tests when cds first came out way back in the early 80s. There was a big concern about this but the error correction in audio cd players worked fine. On some early cd players these defects would sound like static. these same discs, if you can find one, also sounds like static on cdrom drives especially when doing a high speed dae rip to mp3.

 

[CZroe]

The first "Audio Grade" CDs surfaced in late 98 & really were just low grade CDs. I did not say that newer ones don't carry any RIAA code, because I knew only certain CDs could be used in dedicated home-audio CD recorders. So, all falls in line with my original "disputed" response.

<< Perhaps some trend setter [(the RIAA)] has come in and defined reflectivity and quality standards for "Audio" CDs, but the fact remains that they don't have to be good enough to reliably hold data to earn the "Audio CD" rating. Back in '98, they were literally charging twice as much for lower grade CDs because people really thought they were "special purpose" CDs [(Like todays Audio CDs)]! >>

 

[CQuinn]

Oyeve,

The proof you were looking for?

From that thread I can infer that sometimes the quality control in making pressed
CDs is not good enough to catch obvious defects. But the recording industry does not
deliberately put holes in the CD medium, which was the impression I was getting.
I might go so far as to say you should not normally expect to find hole in the media,
even for commercial audio CDs.

 

[Oyeve]

Thanks CQuinn, thats what I was talking about. Many of my early (1985ish) have a lot of these holes in it.

 

[CZroe]

<< If anything, audio CD's need to be HIGHER quality than data CD's, since the CD-audio format has minimal error-correction capabilities, while data formats have fairly robust error-correction. >>



Audio CD's don't NEED error correction, that is why the players utilize practically none. Most audio-only CD players are no more complex than an electronic phonograph (as opposed to simply being 'electric'). Scratch them to hell and back, your computer may no longer rip them digitally, but your ears can't hear any errors on the bit-byte level. Only serious errors cause a CD to skip. You will not have these types of errors by using poor-grade reject CDRs.

/EDIT: I did NOT make this idiotic post. See below...

 

[Workin']

<< Audio CD's don't NEED error correction, that is why the players utilize practically none. Most audio-only CD players are no more complex than an electronic phonograph (as opposed to simply being 'electric'). >>

I hate to belabor the point, but what color is the sky in your world? Where do you get your information? I'd like to know, because it sure is funny.

 

[CZroe]

That was my idiotic brother posting in a thread I already responded in. Please do not let that discredit my original response. I've known about audio CD error-corrections since before I was even a teenager (21 now). Either in the late eighties or early nineties, they had a "CDs vs LPs" episode of Newton's Apple. They took a key and scratched it to show it's error correction capabilities. If anyone else has seen this episode, back me up so I can prove I knew about it before and therefore I obviously didn't make that stupid statement!

And before anyone asks: YES. I *DO* have to chew him out everyday for deleting and editing my posts (Example: He delete my post talking about a pirated GBA game that some guy on eBay sold us as a real cart because he thought we'd be on some Hong-Kong Mafia's hit-list for blurbing it to Nintendo!). He's finally pushed me over the edge and I AM changing my password.

 

[Workin']

<< That was my idiotic brother posting in a thread I already responded in. >>

LOL, I'd kill the guy! Is it your little brother or big brother? I thought things were going downhill fast...

oooohh - was that you or your brother posting that?

 

[JohnnyPC]

<< Not the same eh?. I guess I'll have to give The Screen Savers show on tech TV a call then, they stated there was absolutely no phisical difference. >>



I had to quit watching that show because of the increasing bogus spew they spread on things. They're pretty much good to go on most things but either it's me geting nitpicky or they have just started leaning more and more towards the opinion side of the opinion vs actual fact equation on more and more topics...though I do miss that redhed with the big yahoos...