CD Burner Question

[Bonz]

Bit Rate issue. In my music project computer, I am using a Sony Spressa CRX140E. This seems to be limited to 16bit but my recordings are generally done at 32bit Float or 24bit. I feel I am losing audio when I burn through CD Extreme which defaults to 16bit. I am being forced to create my .wav files in 16bit even though the project was recorded otherwise.

Is there a solution for this other than purchasing another unit?

I downloaded an upgrade (which didn't list what the freakin download would give me) hoping that it would enable this unit to allow more bit sampling but NOOOO
it basically gave me a slicker looking panel .. nothing more.

 

[treymonfauntre]

man, there have honestly been 2 or 3 threads a week about this. audio cds are 16 bit. thats why so many units coming out 5+ years ago said "CD QUALITY!" on them. the technology was only advanced enough to have affordability in 16 bit units. everything that is now coming out that is 24+ bit says some other stupid catchphrase like PRO QUALITY, because they're actually BETTER THAN CDs!!!! that must be professional.

 

[Rstiltskin]

I think, maybe, you just might.............

Bit Rate issue. In my music project computer, I am using a Sony Spressa CRX140E. This seems to be limited to 16bit but my recordings are generally done at 32bit Float or 24bit. I feel I am losing audio when I burn through CD Extreme which defaults to 16bit. I am being forced to create my .wav files in 16bit even though the project was recorded otherwise.

Is there a solution for this other than purchasing another unit?

I downloaded an upgrade (which didn't list what the freakin download would give me) hoping that it would enable this unit to allow more bit sampling but NOOOO
it basically gave me a slicker looking panel .. nothing more.

have a basic misunderstanding about cd's. if you want your files to be playable on most (last five years or so) cd players they will HAVE to be 16bit, 44.sumpinkhz samplerate, because that is the standard, period.

if you want to backup your tracking, you should be able to copy DATA FILES over to a cdr or cdrw exactly the same as you recorded them.

www.cdfreaks.com has a lot of stuff about cd's dvd's cracks, overlong recording and music playing compatibility.

hope this helps.......

 

[Bonz]

Ooooohhhhhh I C

Well that splains it .... Sorry but I thought we were in 2005 were I can do stuff like take a picture with my cell & email it to my friend in Austrialia within seconds and stuff like that ... but I guess when it comes to CD qual it's what it is ..

Hey actually I'm very satisfied to learn of this because I was about to go out and shell out more cash ...

I must say that occasionally I read stuff from people that this site is full of shit but I must say that from the info that I've received and others have received, I feel the knowledge base here from its' participants is top shelf.

I wonder how many of you are professional recording engineers? Please don't tell me not too many because many of you could be making serious cash from what is floating around in your heads ..

I often wish I could reciprocate .. with the info that is in my realm of knowledge. If anybody ever has any DSL/ Broadband stuff they need to know, please don't hesitate to shoot me a query or two.

Mahalo Bra

 

[Bonz]

One More Thing ..

I bought my version of Cubase via Guitar Center online. In calling them for assistance because the manual sometimes gave me headaches, I could never get anybody that knew anything about recording software .. one guy even had to balls to say he would answer my question(s) if I paid him $100.

On the brighter side ... the Tech support line at Mackie is awesome if anybody uses their stuff. Those guys will hang in there with you until you get the results you want for free .. and I was impressed by their knowledge. They don't even ask for your serial number or purchase info


If you ever need Mackie questions answered .. ask for a guy name Owen

 

[bblackwood]

Well that splains it .... Sorry but I thought we were in 2005 were I can do stuff like take a picture with my cell & email it to my friend in Austrialia within seconds and stuff like that ... but I guess when it comes to CD qual it's what it is ..

96dB of dynamic range isn't enough for you?

 

[dachay2tnr]

Well that splains it .... Sorry but I thought we were in 2005 were I can do stuff like take a picture with my cell & email it to my friend in

And hence the introduction of technologies like DVD-Audio and SA-CD. These new technologies introduce higher bit rates and frequency response, as well as things like surround sound.

However, as stated above, all audio CD's, in order for them to be playable in any CD player, must adhere to a standard. That standard is 16 bits and 44.1 kHz.

 

[timboZ]

And hence the introduction of technologies like DVD-Audio and SA-CD. These new technologies introduce higher bit rates and frequency response, as well as things like surround sound.

Will DVD-Audio and SA-CD ever be a standard like CD's when the younger generation only seem to care about MP3's and Itunes

 

[dachay2tnr]

Will DVD-Audio and SA-CD ever be a standard like CD's when the younger generation only seem to care about MP3's and Itunes

Well, they are "standards." The real question you pose is will they ever be popular?

I tend to agree with you, the trend does not appear to be towards higher quality. But then, for Rap music, how high does the quality really need to be?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

These things usually happen in cycles. MP3s are this generation's version of the 8-track tape player back in the 60s. Both were designed for convenience and portability, audio quality be damned. But the 8-track died a merciful death with the marrying of quality high-bais two-track recording and playback heads with the "Compact Cassette" tape format.

What's needed for computer audio is the wide acceptance of a lossless compression format. Such formats already exist, but I'm not sure that there's much pressure on the MPEG committee to adapt one yet. I suspect what that will take is a demand by the lazy consumer for one format that works both on disc and on iPod-like players; they'll get tired of having to rip and burn between CDA and MP3 soon enough. Give it a couple of years...

G.

 

[Bonz]

Prior To:

Before i posted my question, I emailed Sony and this is their reply :

"Dear Sony Valued Customer,

You need to have the Sony drive set as master of the secondary channel with no other drive connected. Also use the EIDE cable that came with the Sony drive, not one from your system. Then you need to get any BIOS and Motherboard updates from your PC manufacturer and any Windows updates from Microsoft, including the latest Version of Direct X which should be 9.0C.

Please include previous e-mails in any replies so we may better assist you.

Also, you may wish to visit our website at Http://sony.storagesupport.com This website has manuals and drivers for our products as well as FAQ's.

Thank you,
Brett
Sony Technical Support

*************************************************
Funny thing is, it doesn't say what results you will achieve after you do all these things.

 

[gordone]

What was the question you emailed support? It seems like if you asked the question in your first post, I'd say the Sony tech has NO clue as to anything digital audio related!

Other have already answered, but the Sony should have no problem burning 24-bit audio files if you are burning a data disc. The drive shouldn't care what your burning when you're burning data, it could be movies/word documents/pictures of your dog/whatever...

If you're doing an Audio disc, it HAS to be 16-bit. Some applications will convert other formats for you automatically. I think Nero can do this with mp3s, and I know Windows Media Player will convert whatever is in your Media library into 16-bit/44.1khz wave files whenver you select the burn option.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Funny thing is, it doesn't say what results you will achieve after you do all these things.

You'll acheive zero results. That was a canned, boilerplate response making sure you have a specific system configuration that is easiest to troubleshoot before they actually start troubleshooting.

This is common procedure among many of today's customer service deopartments who are more concerned about handling call volume statistics than in actually solving problems. It's main purpose is to allow them to say that they've responded to the call in X amount of time and since they "technically" sent you an answer, thet can "technically" close the call.

That "please include previous e-mails in replies" without providing you with a call reference number is a code phrase saying, "We're going to go ahead and close this ticket out. If you still have problems after following the inane and irrelevant advice in this message, let us know and we'll open a new ticket."

When their department managers hand their reports in, they'll be able to say that they have a wonderful customer service team because they can handle so many hundreds or thousands of calls a day and have most of them responded to and "resolved" in a very short period of time, because "resolved" is defined as a closed service ticket.

And if/when you do contact them again, they'll immediately concentrate on the stuff in the first letter. If you have not replaced your perfectly good EIDE cable with theirs that you probably threw out 5 minutes after you installed the drive, they'll be able to put in their database that you're operating their product under a "non-standard" configuration, explaining to their superiors why the call took longer to actually solve than usual.

It all a numbers game that has nothing to do with actual quality of customer service.

G.

 

[ecktronic]

However, as stated above, all audio CD's, in order for them to be playable in any CD player, must adhere to a standard. That standard is 16 bits and 44.1 kHz.

Well thats not exactly true. You get CDs that actually are in 20bit and play on normal CD players. They are called Super Bit Map CDs and are meant to sound alot better than 16 bit although im a little sceptical.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Well thats not exactly true. You get CDs that actually are in 20bit and play on normal CD players. They are called Super Bit Map CDs and are meant to sound alot better than 16 bit although im a little sceptical.

Correct me if I'm wrong, eck, but I was of the understanding that "20-bit CDs" were really just CDs that used a special 20-bit A/D converter in the mastering process, and then they used a proprietary dithering algorithm to dither the converted signal down to 16 bit by the time they got to the laser.

From one of the Fantasy Records web pages promoting their "Newest 20-bit CDs":

"These albums were mastered in analog utilizing the 20-Bit K2 Super Coding System.

Developed by JVC, the 20-Bit K2 Super Coding System integrates three important digital audio functions:

1. The JVC 20-Bit, 128 times over-sampling high resolution analog to digital converter.

2. The JVC K2 Super Coding resolves the high resolution 20-Bit signal to the 16-Bit compact disc format while retaining the integrity of the low level information.

3. The JVC K2 Interface effectively eliminates time base jitter in the digital data stream."

The key phrase is in point #2: "...resolves the high resolution 20-bit signal to the 16-bit compact disc format..." These are still 16-bit CDs, even though they misleadingly call them "20-bit CDs" right on the title of their web page.

G.

 

[daav]

These things usually happen in cycles. MP3s are this generation's version of the 8-track tape player back in the 60s. Both were designed for convenience and portability, audio quality be damned. But the 8-track died a merciful death with the marrying of quality high-bais two-track recording and playback heads with the "Compact Cassette" tape format.

What's needed for computer audio is the wide acceptance of a lossless compression format. Such formats already exist, but I'm not sure that there's much pressure on the MPEG committee to adapt one yet. I suspect what that will take is a demand by the lazy consumer for one format that works both on disc and on iPod-like players; they'll get tired of having to rip and burn between CDA and MP3 soon enough. Give it a couple of years...

G.

Agreed! Now my question on this would be, if you have a lossless compression format (for instance, i think FLAC is one of these, right?), do they translate to any format recording, or are they written for the 16/44.1 "standard"?
So would we have to have a sea change in the recording industry to change to higher bit/sample rates then have people come up with new lossless compression?
Alternately, will the bit/sample rate increase as DVD audio might become commonplace (as timboz mentions)?

Anyone know what the industry trends seem to be showing?

Daav

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Agreed! Now my question on this would be, if you have a lossless compression format (for instance, i think FLAC is one of these, right?), do they translate to any format recording, or are they written for the 16/44.1 "standard"?
So would we have to have a sea change in the recording industry to change to higher bit/sample rates then have people come up with new lossless compression?
Alternately, will the bit/sample rate increase as DVD audio might become commonplace (as timboz mentions)?

Anyone know what the industry trends seem to be showing?

Daav

There's many lossless compression schemes floating around out there, including FLAC, LPAC, ACS and WavPack. On general principle of how losless compression schemes work, they usually can be adapted to any bit depth or sample rate, those parameters are just details to be plugged into the compression algorithm is all. So theoretically, any such comprssion scheme can be applied to any digital data format. There's a couple of wrinkles involved, however.

First, determining what compression schemes have the most "scalable" performance. By this I mean that while they all can be applied to any data format, some might have more efficient compression - i.e. be able to compress tighter - at higher bit depths whereas others may be more efficient at lower bit depths. Also one might be more efficient at compressing video information while another may be more efficient with the audio. One might be a fair comprimise between the two. Picking one that works well for today and won't go obsolete in two years because of leaps in data capacities is key.

Second, and hardest, is getting the MPEG group and/or the industry at large to agree upon a common format. There's a whole lot of corporate politics involved at that level . Usually what comes out of the committees as the next standard bears little resemblence to any one single proposal going in.

I honestly don't know exactly what MPEG might be studying in the way of losless compression standards for audio right now, but I would be very suprised if they weren't at least looking at the issue to some degree.

G.

 

[dachay2tnr]

Well thats not exactly true. You get CDs that actually are in 20bit and play on normal CD players. They are called Super Bit Map CDs and are meant to sound alot better than 16 bit although im a little sceptical.

Sorry, but the Red Book standard for CD's calls for 16 bits at 44.1 kHz.

These days there are all kinds of hybrids out there, and CD players will play all kinds of disks and formats (.mp3, CD-RW, etc.) But the standard is still 16 bits.

I've not heard of the 20 bit CD's you refer to, but I'll take odds they won't play in an older CD player.

The Red Book is the 1980 document that provides the specifications for the standard compact disc (CD) developed by Sony and Philips. According to legend, the document was in a binder with red covers, originating the tradition for subsequent adaptations of CD specifications to be referred to as variously colored books. The Red Book described the CD's physical specifications, such as the tracks, sector and block layout, coding, and sampling. Sony and Philips referred to the discs as CD-DA (digital audio), defined as a content medium for audio data digitized at 44,100 samples per second (44.1KHz) and in a range of 65,536 possible values (16 bits).

 

[ecktronic]

Correct me if I'm wrong, eck, but I was of the understanding that "20-bit CDs" were really just CDs that used a special 20-bit A/D converter in the mastering process, and then they used a proprietary dithering algorithm to dither the converted signal down to 16 bit by the time they got to the laser.

From one of the Fantasy Records web pages promoting their "Newest 20-bit CDs":

"These albums were mastered in analog utilizing the 20-Bit K2 Super Coding System.

Developed by JVC, the 20-Bit K2 Super Coding System integrates three important digital audio functions:

1. The JVC 20-Bit, 128 times over-sampling high resolution analog to digital converter.

2. The JVC K2 Super Coding resolves the high resolution 20-Bit signal to the 16-Bit compact disc format while retaining the integrity of the low level information.

3. The JVC K2 Interface effectively eliminates time base jitter in the digital data stream."

The key phrase is in point #2: "...resolves the high resolution 20-bit signal to the 16-bit compact disc format..." These are still 16-bit CDs, even though they misleadingly call them "20-bit CDs" right on the title of their web page.

G.

Ok Glen, you win ya smug feker ye!!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Ok Glen, you win ya smug feker ye!!

Unfortunately it's the consumer that loses on this one. The use of the phrase "20-bit CD" by the record people really hacks me off.

It not only implies a total falsehood - the CD's are not 20-bit in any way - that fools fine folk like yourself, but it also makes it sound like there's something particularly special about these CDs. I don't know about their dithing algorithm, maybe that is a fine product; but what's so damn special about using a 20-bit DAC? That wasn't even that big of a deal when they put them into ADAT/XT-20s 5 yeas ago...

G.