regebro
Insane Genious!
Yeah, right...
And painting the edge of the CD with special green markers did improve sound to, right? Not to forget about the green things you put around the speaker cables...
Bah! Humbug!
And painting the edge of the CD with special green markers did improve sound to, right? Not to forget about the green things you put around the speaker cables...
Bah! Humbug!
tutton
New member
Its not my advice... 
Wat green things?
and whats your problem?????????
[This message has been edited by tutton (edited 07-28-2000).]
Wat green things?
and whats your problem?????????
[This message has been edited by tutton (edited 07-28-2000).]
regebro
Insane Genious!
My problem is that the advice is humbug. You can beleive it if you feel that you want to, but it is still humbug. Not your advice, sure, and therefore not your humbug. But still humbug.
Btw, the "green things" and the green markers were a HiFi fad. By putting green markes and green rings on certain places on your HiFi equipment it made it sound better. How the heck did that work? Well, it didn't.
The HiFi world is full of beleivers in magick. If they can't explain to you EXACTLY how it works, don't beleive them.
Btw, the "green things" and the green markers were a HiFi fad. By putting green markes and green rings on certain places on your HiFi equipment it made it sound better. How the heck did that work? Well, it didn't.
The HiFi world is full of beleivers in magick. If they can't explain to you EXACTLY how it works, don't beleive them.
MISTERQCUE
Not Just Anutha Brutha
Purportedly, those green "thingies" were
supposed to contain low freq rumble during
C/D playback. Bullsh#t,as it is just another way for audio manufacturers to "steal" money
from the consumer.
BTW, Block-error rates in C/D recording is
peferred at 2-4x. The aforementioned web site given by tutton is crap.(Nothing against you tutton!)Excellent info can be found by accessing www.digido.com and review Glen Meadows article on cd burning rates.
[This message has been edited by MISTERQCUE (edited 07-27-2000).]
supposed to contain low freq rumble during
C/D playback. Bullsh#t,as it is just another way for audio manufacturers to "steal" money
from the consumer.
BTW, Block-error rates in C/D recording is
peferred at 2-4x. The aforementioned web site given by tutton is crap.(Nothing against you tutton!)Excellent info can be found by accessing www.digido.com and review Glen Meadows article on cd burning rates.
[This message has been edited by MISTERQCUE (edited 07-27-2000).]
dobro
Well-known member
Like to edit your messages a bit, eh? BTW, when you edit a message, you can also delete the previous 'This message has been edited by...' etc.
MISTERQCUE
Not Just Anutha Brutha
Also in the same article at www.getsigned.com
the author bases his theory on 1x burning by
using a vs1680. Now that may be a fine tool,
but when that indvidual is creating a pro
project for duplication one would believe that his assumption on 1x sampling is correct.
However Glen Meadows states that the since introduction of DAW's and digital mixers many of these workstations researched deteriorated the sound of music,shrink the stereo image and soundstage,and produces certain audio distortion. Therefore since the author preferred to stae his case using a VS1680 rather than a computer stating that 1x c/d burning s/b used,right there any-1
with basic knowledge of recording could tell that he is way out their in left field!
and d
the author bases his theory on 1x burning by
using a vs1680. Now that may be a fine tool,
but when that indvidual is creating a pro
project for duplication one would believe that his assumption on 1x sampling is correct.
However Glen Meadows states that the since introduction of DAW's and digital mixers many of these workstations researched deteriorated the sound of music,shrink the stereo image and soundstage,and produces certain audio distortion. Therefore since the author preferred to stae his case using a VS1680 rather than a computer stating that 1x c/d burning s/b used,right there any-1
with basic knowledge of recording could tell that he is way out their in left field!
and d
MISTERQCUE
Not Just Anutha Brutha
Thanks dobro!
M
Mountaineer
New member
I thought the reason for 1X burning ( mastering ) was to reduce the possible effects of burner induced jitter caused by vibration.
Regards,
PAPicker
Regards,
PAPicker
MISTERQCUE
Not Just Anutha Brutha
The author of the aforementioned web page
states nothing of the sort.He "claims" that
1x sounds "way" better than 2x and nothing to do with jitter.I have no clue what this person is talking about.
states nothing of the sort.He "claims" that
1x sounds "way" better than 2x and nothing to do with jitter.I have no clue what this person is talking about.
tutton
New member
Tar for clearin that up
I already know bout didido dot com
I just thought this was an interesting issue thats all
Tony
I already know bout didido dot com
I just thought this was an interesting issue thats all
Tony
V
virtual.ray
New member
Eric Johnson,guitarist extraordinaire,claims he can hear the difference between Duracell and Eveready 9v batteries in his stomp boxes!
tutton
New member
now why does that not surprise me
G
Guest
Guest
Below is a Stephen Paul post directly from the rec.audio.pro newsgroup:
"I tried to post this through deja, where I discovered this tripe, having no idea whether you'll get it, I'll post it
myself... And HARVEY G... can't seem to get through by email... don't have current number, call me will ya?
In article <20000605223150.15893.00003952@ng-md1.aol.com>,
larrysb@aol.com (nuke) wrote:
> spaul@primenet.com wrote:
> >In addition, it is a common misconception that reflective areas = binary
> >ones, and dark areas = binary zeros... In fact whether a pit equals
> >a zero or one depends on many other factors... it isn't as clear cut as
> >all that (pun intended<g> ).
>
> Correct. What matters are the zero crossings, and the length of each pit or
> land sequence represents a symbol in eight-to-fourteen modulation. Errors are
> possible when the timing is poor and the lengths of each pit sequence is too
> close to the length of a similar symbol.
Thank God I was right about SOMETHING...
>
> >To add to the woes, Reed-Solomon CRC code algorithms are what designers
> >would refer to as 'leaky'...
>
> I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. Would you care to explain further
> in detail what's wrong with R-SCIRC?
Not right now, but I have already. Disagree all you want... I have no idea who you are or where you get your
opinions, but you're welcome to 'em. I believe already explained that there are problems involving jitter, and
other elements which don't =neccessarily= result in error correction coming into play...
WHEN ARE YOU GUYS THROWING FIRE AT ME ON THIS THREAD WITHOUT READ ING =EVERYTHING I
SAID???= AND STOP TAKING THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT WITHOUT MY QUALIFYING STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN YOUR "BRAIN" OR QUOTES? AND I PARAPHRASE MYSELF "There are no absolutes, what
works best works best, and I never told anyone that I'm God and not to see what works best for them..."
There are -many- things that the ear can hear that no measuring in =either= the Digital OR Analog domains
may currently resolve into absolutes...
That's my experience talking, after being a recordist for over 40 years, an artist 35 years, and after designing,
installing and/or building and chief engineering some of the biggest best equipped facilities in the world,
not to mention having built the mikes used on probably 80% of the most whatever records out there, often
with NO credit from the artists or recordists... I feel like some of you guys are using myself and my reputation
for a way to make yourselves look hot... great you're all blazing, I am an ignorant ass who's opinions are
simply that, and I have stated this many times.
Another lovely post to me about this stated at the top, "Sorry wrong." With all I know and have experienced in
41 years of playing with recording toys, I would still NEVER say someone was simply and absolutlely
-wrong-. There are facts, but there are also places where even facts =break= =down=... check out another
pea-brain named Heisenberg who delineated this for us all many years ago...
I am really sick of this bickering and cat post clawing... Reed-Solomon CRC code is NOT the panacea for all
ills of digital storage and recovery... There are many papers on the subject but find them yourselves, and
please stop making out that I have done anything but given emphasis to good practice guidelines which will
ordinarily result, (at least IN MY CRUMMY OPINION) in better sounding records... on Plextors or any other
damned thing? Why not -listen- to the results of my ignorance before you 'gurus' gun for me, like I'm Wyatt
Earp and you want to maje a rep for yourselves by shooting me down... Sometimes I really HATE this place,
and this bull**** is =why=.
>
> [snip]
> > you
> >can succesfully read/write audio data much more quickly magnetically with
> >less chance of degradation.
>
> No, this not exactly the case.
Of =course= it isn't EXACTLY the case. Thank you... Kindly notice the qualifiers CAN, and LESS CHANCE...
D'you think those are there because I think I have the only answer or opinion? D'you think I'm not CAREFUL
about my statements because I'm a scientist, and know that it's all on the edge? No. I'm careful, because
an ignorant self-educated -jerk- like myself HAS to be careful amongst all you learned High Priests out
here... It's like walking into a den of cobras... and to quote Indiana Jones, "Snakes... I HATE snakes...."
> The biggest problem with CD is that the track is a continuous spiral. On HD and
> other media, the disk is divided into tracks and sectors.
They also are not at constant speed... they have to spin faster on inner portions of the spiral to keep the read
rate even. However could you neglect this in your most learned, humbling distertation???
> HD's also miss servo and tracks all the time. Hard disks are NOT guaranteed to
> return you data in any amount of time. It may take a significant amount of
> time to return data from a disk, if conditions are such that it has difficulty
> servo-locking on a particular track, or if error correction takes multiple
> attempts to read the data. This can and does happen, and the track/sector
> formatting makes it possible for a drive to make several attempts to read
> media, or even remap a bad area on the fly to guarantee data integrity.
Hence a part of my comments that THE CHANCE OF more successful recovery exists on HDs at higher
speeds...
> However, the spiral format guarantees timely delivery of data, but not data
> integrity. No CD audio player will make multiple attempts at reading the same
> data. If the read fails, only the error correction mechanism can save the read.
Really? Ever heard of RAM buffers? Where all this action still takes place? Never heard a skipping CD
trying to re-read data before unsuccessfully moving on? Complete failure of even error concealment
schemes? You actually buy into the baloney that RS CRC is superman? It catcjes all the ear could ever
hear? It ALWAYS gets the anagram unscrambled properly? The checsum block itself is ALWAYS the
RIGHT NUMBER? And that's ALL that matters in Audio Reproduction?? God I'm dumb.
> HD also have the advantage of operating under controlled conditions, which
> lessens the chance of lost data, but does not eliminate the possibility. Since
> CD's are exposed to handling, the playback system has to have significant error
> handling capability to deal with scratches or soiling of the disk surface.
> So actually, the error handling is more robust for optical systems.
Is that a fact? My datasheets tell me differently. But they could be out of date by now, or I could be wrong,
but at the speeds these HDs operate at the sheer size of the CRC blocks and hardware internal ECC
systems go far beyond what is in the normal CD player... but I could be wrong about that too. No. In fact I
INSIST I'm wrong... Dumber and dumber... hIgh noon boys and girls... and none but me and these two
learned gentleman of uncivilized refutation on the dusty street between me and certain Death... "....dah dah
dah dah dah oh my darlin'... dum chicka chicka chicka chicka chicka chicka chick... I guess Gary Cooper
musta felt like this.
> Data CD roms employ another level of error correction to ensure data integrity
> for computer use. It is acceptable for a consumer music playback system to
> occasionally play interpolated data (meaning an uncorrectable playback error)
> but this would of course be fatal in compu
"I tried to post this through deja, where I discovered this tripe, having no idea whether you'll get it, I'll post it
myself... And HARVEY G... can't seem to get through by email... don't have current number, call me will ya?
In article <20000605223150.15893.00003952@ng-md1.aol.com>,
larrysb@aol.com (nuke) wrote:
> spaul@primenet.com wrote:
> >In addition, it is a common misconception that reflective areas = binary
> >ones, and dark areas = binary zeros... In fact whether a pit equals
> >a zero or one depends on many other factors... it isn't as clear cut as
> >all that (pun intended<g> ).
>
> Correct. What matters are the zero crossings, and the length of each pit or
> land sequence represents a symbol in eight-to-fourteen modulation. Errors are
> possible when the timing is poor and the lengths of each pit sequence is too
> close to the length of a similar symbol.
Thank God I was right about SOMETHING...
>
> >To add to the woes, Reed-Solomon CRC code algorithms are what designers
> >would refer to as 'leaky'...
>
> I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. Would you care to explain further
> in detail what's wrong with R-SCIRC?
Not right now, but I have already. Disagree all you want... I have no idea who you are or where you get your
opinions, but you're welcome to 'em. I believe already explained that there are problems involving jitter, and
other elements which don't =neccessarily= result in error correction coming into play...
WHEN ARE YOU GUYS THROWING FIRE AT ME ON THIS THREAD WITHOUT READ ING =EVERYTHING I
SAID???= AND STOP TAKING THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT WITHOUT MY QUALIFYING STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN YOUR "BRAIN" OR QUOTES? AND I PARAPHRASE MYSELF "There are no absolutes, what
works best works best, and I never told anyone that I'm God and not to see what works best for them..."
There are -many- things that the ear can hear that no measuring in =either= the Digital OR Analog domains
may currently resolve into absolutes...
That's my experience talking, after being a recordist for over 40 years, an artist 35 years, and after designing,
installing and/or building and chief engineering some of the biggest best equipped facilities in the world,
not to mention having built the mikes used on probably 80% of the most whatever records out there, often
with NO credit from the artists or recordists... I feel like some of you guys are using myself and my reputation
for a way to make yourselves look hot... great you're all blazing, I am an ignorant ass who's opinions are
simply that, and I have stated this many times.
Another lovely post to me about this stated at the top, "Sorry wrong." With all I know and have experienced in
41 years of playing with recording toys, I would still NEVER say someone was simply and absolutlely
-wrong-. There are facts, but there are also places where even facts =break= =down=... check out another
pea-brain named Heisenberg who delineated this for us all many years ago...
I am really sick of this bickering and cat post clawing... Reed-Solomon CRC code is NOT the panacea for all
ills of digital storage and recovery... There are many papers on the subject but find them yourselves, and
please stop making out that I have done anything but given emphasis to good practice guidelines which will
ordinarily result, (at least IN MY CRUMMY OPINION) in better sounding records... on Plextors or any other
damned thing? Why not -listen- to the results of my ignorance before you 'gurus' gun for me, like I'm Wyatt
Earp and you want to maje a rep for yourselves by shooting me down... Sometimes I really HATE this place,
and this bull**** is =why=.
>
> [snip]
> > you
> >can succesfully read/write audio data much more quickly magnetically with
> >less chance of degradation.
>
> No, this not exactly the case.
Of =course= it isn't EXACTLY the case. Thank you... Kindly notice the qualifiers CAN, and LESS CHANCE...
D'you think those are there because I think I have the only answer or opinion? D'you think I'm not CAREFUL
about my statements because I'm a scientist, and know that it's all on the edge? No. I'm careful, because
an ignorant self-educated -jerk- like myself HAS to be careful amongst all you learned High Priests out
here... It's like walking into a den of cobras... and to quote Indiana Jones, "Snakes... I HATE snakes...."
> The biggest problem with CD is that the track is a continuous spiral. On HD and
> other media, the disk is divided into tracks and sectors.
They also are not at constant speed... they have to spin faster on inner portions of the spiral to keep the read
rate even. However could you neglect this in your most learned, humbling distertation???
> HD's also miss servo and tracks all the time. Hard disks are NOT guaranteed to
> return you data in any amount of time. It may take a significant amount of
> time to return data from a disk, if conditions are such that it has difficulty
> servo-locking on a particular track, or if error correction takes multiple
> attempts to read the data. This can and does happen, and the track/sector
> formatting makes it possible for a drive to make several attempts to read
> media, or even remap a bad area on the fly to guarantee data integrity.
Hence a part of my comments that THE CHANCE OF more successful recovery exists on HDs at higher
speeds...
> However, the spiral format guarantees timely delivery of data, but not data
> integrity. No CD audio player will make multiple attempts at reading the same
> data. If the read fails, only the error correction mechanism can save the read.
Really? Ever heard of RAM buffers? Where all this action still takes place? Never heard a skipping CD
trying to re-read data before unsuccessfully moving on? Complete failure of even error concealment
schemes? You actually buy into the baloney that RS CRC is superman? It catcjes all the ear could ever
hear? It ALWAYS gets the anagram unscrambled properly? The checsum block itself is ALWAYS the
RIGHT NUMBER? And that's ALL that matters in Audio Reproduction?? God I'm dumb.
> HD also have the advantage of operating under controlled conditions, which
> lessens the chance of lost data, but does not eliminate the possibility. Since
> CD's are exposed to handling, the playback system has to have significant error
> handling capability to deal with scratches or soiling of the disk surface.
> So actually, the error handling is more robust for optical systems.
Is that a fact? My datasheets tell me differently. But they could be out of date by now, or I could be wrong,
but at the speeds these HDs operate at the sheer size of the CRC blocks and hardware internal ECC
systems go far beyond what is in the normal CD player... but I could be wrong about that too. No. In fact I
INSIST I'm wrong... Dumber and dumber... hIgh noon boys and girls... and none but me and these two
learned gentleman of uncivilized refutation on the dusty street between me and certain Death... "....dah dah
dah dah dah oh my darlin'... dum chicka chicka chicka chicka chicka chicka chick... I guess Gary Cooper
musta felt like this.
> Data CD roms employ another level of error correction to ensure data integrity
> for computer use. It is acceptable for a consumer music playback system to
> occasionally play interpolated data (meaning an uncorrectable playback error)
> but this would of course be fatal in compu
G
Guest
Guest
[No message]
R
Recording Engineer
Moderator
Here's another Stephen Paul post directly from the rec.audio.pro newsgroup:
"wgeiger@my-deja.com wrote:
> Scott,
>
> Go To http://www.mcintoshlabs.com
> Look at MCD-7010 (CDR) & MCP 831 (DVD/CDR)
> This is about as good as it gets with prices to match. You did say
> "the best".
>
> Regards,
>
> WHG
>
> In article <392DE34E.F20E02D1@usa.net>,
> newstudio@usa.net wrote:
> > Which CD-R types/brands can people recommend especially for audio, not
> > data, CDs? All CD-RWs are not good for audio CDs, correct?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
You are -always- better off mastering your audio CDs =in realtime= using =only= gold dye-type CDs...
Greens were developed to provide higher contrast for easier optical reading at higher speeds. Also look for
some form of UV coating over the polycarbonate on the die side. Hand cut real-time CDs can be performed
on green dye media without a problem, but if the CD will be used for a cutting/pressing master, it is
preferable to use gold color. (Especially for archiving.)
Also, make certain you tell your agent/plant whatever that if they transfer to glass in anything but real-time,
you will make them do it again, so let's save both of us time, and you (the agent/plant) some money by
following these instructions the first time. (We conducted tests here at 1x. 2x. 4x. 6x, and 8x... The sound got
thinner and thinner, and the stereo collapsed, until finally, we discovered the 8x copies had lost UP TO 3 dB
OF LEVEL!!
Don't have time right now to explain this, maybe some other digital luminary here, or when I can rest a
moment from trying to get the web content up as quickly as I can... We're starting to get a lot of visitors, and
aside from some artwork and music, the SPaudio content is in formatting and transit mode. But feel free to
visit and cache the spinning raytraced links, etc... and keep checking back, it is going to be one hell of a
site, I promise<g>.
Remember though that unfortunately these days, even a U-Matic 3/4" master is no guarantee if you don't
make this real-time demand crystal clear. Plants interested in the quick buck will simply make a CD from
the 3/4" and transfer -that- at high speed to glass. Makes no sense to me, but, after all, that way the start IDs
once done are duped at high speed with your hard won data. I have a friend who worked at one of these
wonderful plants and told me what they were doing. He quit, and I blew chunks...
Nice guys, eh?<g>
SP
--
"If you blaze a trail and nobody follows it-
You're not a Pioneer, you're an Eccentric!"
--SP"
"wgeiger@my-deja.com wrote:
> Scott,
>
> Go To http://www.mcintoshlabs.com
> Look at MCD-7010 (CDR) & MCP 831 (DVD/CDR)
> This is about as good as it gets with prices to match. You did say
> "the best".
>
> Regards,
>
> WHG
>
> In article <392DE34E.F20E02D1@usa.net>,
> newstudio@usa.net wrote:
> > Which CD-R types/brands can people recommend especially for audio, not
> > data, CDs? All CD-RWs are not good for audio CDs, correct?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
You are -always- better off mastering your audio CDs =in realtime= using =only= gold dye-type CDs...
Greens were developed to provide higher contrast for easier optical reading at higher speeds. Also look for
some form of UV coating over the polycarbonate on the die side. Hand cut real-time CDs can be performed
on green dye media without a problem, but if the CD will be used for a cutting/pressing master, it is
preferable to use gold color. (Especially for archiving.)
Also, make certain you tell your agent/plant whatever that if they transfer to glass in anything but real-time,
you will make them do it again, so let's save both of us time, and you (the agent/plant) some money by
following these instructions the first time. (We conducted tests here at 1x. 2x. 4x. 6x, and 8x... The sound got
thinner and thinner, and the stereo collapsed, until finally, we discovered the 8x copies had lost UP TO 3 dB
OF LEVEL!!
Don't have time right now to explain this, maybe some other digital luminary here, or when I can rest a
moment from trying to get the web content up as quickly as I can... We're starting to get a lot of visitors, and
aside from some artwork and music, the SPaudio content is in formatting and transit mode. But feel free to
visit and cache the spinning raytraced links, etc... and keep checking back, it is going to be one hell of a
site, I promise<g>.
Remember though that unfortunately these days, even a U-Matic 3/4" master is no guarantee if you don't
make this real-time demand crystal clear. Plants interested in the quick buck will simply make a CD from
the 3/4" and transfer -that- at high speed to glass. Makes no sense to me, but, after all, that way the start IDs
once done are duped at high speed with your hard won data. I have a friend who worked at one of these
wonderful plants and told me what they were doing. He quit, and I blew chunks...
Nice guys, eh?<g>
SP
--
"If you blaze a trail and nobody follows it-
You're not a Pioneer, you're an Eccentric!"
--SP"
regebro
Insane Genious!
I have no clue what this Stephen Paul guy is ranting about. He just seems very upset with the whole universe, but can't explain why... 
R
Recording Engineer
Moderator
"...this Stephen Paul guy..."
Sorry, Stephen, for quoting you from a post you posted on r.a.p on a "not having a great day" day, but I wanted to share with homerecording.com some of the interesting things you had to say about CD-R writing speed and such and all in text; I didn't want to paraphrase or leave anything out.
Sorry, Stephen, for quoting you from a post you posted on r.a.p on a "not having a great day" day, but I wanted to share with homerecording.com some of the interesting things you had to say about CD-R writing speed and such and all in text; I didn't want to paraphrase or leave anything out.
tutton
New member
LoOk 
where finaly at the end of the thread
a typical Stephen Paul post looooooong
Tony
good ta see ya RE
where finaly at the end of the thread
a typical Stephen Paul post looooooong
Tony
good ta see ya RE
R
Recording Engineer
Moderator
I'm trying to participate as much as I can tutton/Tony.
Also, it seems like there's more Stephen said about CD-R writing speed and such but I need to go search the r.a.p. archives again once I get a chance.
Also, it seems like there's more Stephen said about CD-R writing speed and such but I need to go search the r.a.p. archives again once I get a chance.