Preference for listening to music?

It looks like you're disagreeing, then agreeing with what I was saying there Goosey!

Data is data is data.

It does not change unless software changes it. It doesn't matter if it's audio, video or whatever.

It's all in the algorithms.

I can see how CD-R might affect it though - as all CD players have their own error-correction algorithms to deal with scratched surfaces, etc. CD-R is made from lower-grade compounds so that consumer burner lasers can cut it. If the burn isn't made correctly - say by a really cheap and nasty component in the burner - then that would cause the copy to sound different on any player.

The answer there, as with audio cassettes, is to choose a quality recoder (e.g. Pioneer) and quality media (e.g. TDK). You can currently pick up a Pioneer DVD-RW burner for under £40. I got mine with 20 complimentary DVD-Rs and a 50-pack of generic CD-Rs (I don't always use my burner for music) 

A decent DVD-player will play CD-Rs (or DVD-Rs) with WAV or even MP3 files on. I have found WAV to be superior to CDA in my DVD player as the player firmware handles that format much better.

Tony R wrote: So basically the only difference between a £20 CDR drive and a £120 one is the quality of the components and firmware? So the extra cost is for the robustness/reliabilty of the hardware and not for any sonic gains....

You can't get a better burn however much you spend, but if you get a cheap drive you run the risk of getting worse burns (misburning etc.), as well as burns which are technically correct and contain all the data but can easily be misread.

In listening terms both of these amount to sonic losses but in data terms only the former is an issue, because in the second case if you rip the problematic disc again onto another disc using a quality media and a quality drive, the copy of the copy will be better than the copy. If you're burning lots of discs an expensive drive is probably still a good idea, because at least that way a year down the line you shouldn't find that half your discs are unreadable (as long as you buy quality discs as well... money, money, money!)

I've been building radio stations for over 30 years, and although my forte is rf (dealing with the radio-frequency spectrum), most all of your radio stations in the U.S. are running on computers, live jock or not. Data is data... and no matter how you deliver it, the final sensor (the human ear) is an analog device. The basic music vending package is a standard CD...16 bit...44.1 kHz sampling rate. Assuming the recording and mastering studios did a good job on any given album, the goal is then to deliver the product to the end user with as little deviation from the original recording as possible. That final sensor is subjective, just as musical content is, so it really comes down to whatever "floats your boat." BTW, that final delivery device is analog, too (speakers)!

Professionally, we record the audio onto the hard drives in uncompressed wave format. The advent of larger hard drives several years ago allows us to store massive amounts of uncompressed audio (commercials too!). When this technology first came around (smaller hard drives), we were using a 4:1 storage compression for the music. The only real difference in the computers was multiple, high-end, pro sound cards (for overlap capability)...and now most of the popular systems use the multi i/o cards. After we go through all of that painstaking effort to insure audio integrity, we then thoroughly screw it up by running it through audio processors to make sure "we're the loudest on the dial"!

Personally, I can't tell much difference between a standard CD and a 160kbs mp3. I have noticed some differences over the years in the CD version and the vinyl version of the same stuff. Listen to the bass pedals on Firth of Fifth on CD then vinyl! My audio chain is as follows: source, passive variable attenuator, self-built, tube-type power amp, Klipschorns.

oliverstoned wrote: I'm not much surprised, they degrad the sound at the very beggining by compressing it at the "source". What a shame! "'Personally, I can't tell much difference between a standard CD and a 160kbs mp3" your system is not good enough!!

Dude...don't ever tell an electronics engineer his stuff isn't good enough...I've forgotten more of this stuff than you'll ever know...I'll put my power amp up against anything out there, and I built it myself...don't be an "equipment snob"