Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

Didital Things
Topic: More digital bitching....

Page 1 of 1 (16 items)


Posted by Romy the Cat on 01-05-2005

amoxicillin price without prescription

buy amoxicillin without insurance

zoloft

zoloft link

abortion clinics in denver

how much is a abortion blog.icuracao.net

I wonder what the “big people” who work for the companies that commercially manufacture some good sounding CDs (it happens occasionally) use as the CD recorders?

It happens with me 1-2 times per year when I’m trying to records something on CD and I constantly get disappointed with the results. I used a few dedicated “unloaded” PC boxes with good CR-writers (including external), the top of the lines of Mackies, Fostexes, Denons, HHBs, Tascams and Alesis and all of them did not perform well. I heard that MAC’s CRW are better... but I never tried…

Anyhow, what the “big boys” use for recording? I can’t believe that the DG guys who did “The Originals”, the EMI guys who did “Great Recording of Century”, the guys who did the “Testaments” or many other labels humiliate themselves with CDR junk that I have tried. Perhaps, they handle and master data in DAT format but still soon on later it got recorded to CD disk. How do they it?

Thanks,
Romy the Cat


Posted by Antonio J. on 01-05-2005
I know that many of them use ADC based on Mac computers to use with Protools, while other rely on DAT's (Tascam is very well considered) built-in ADCs. Perhaps some use external ADCs from Meitner or dCS. Once you have a "decent" PCM file to transfer to the CD-R, the burner and the media they use I don't know, but I don't think is something very diferent from a Plextor burner and TDK or Maxell discs.

Posted by Max Shatsky on 01-06-2005
Hi Romy,

Have you ever heard any burned CD-R that wasn't disappointing on YOUR
transport?  My impression is that all this "CD-R talk" is very dependent on
particular CD transport used for playing. Certainly there are other factors like CD-R
quality, optimal burning speed (which isn't necessary x1 or x2), external
burners etc., but if the transport isn't optimized to play CD-R's then the
result will be poor. I guess that CD-Players like Meridians may be more
optimized for CD-R's, though I'm not sure.

Max.

Posted by Romy the Cat on 01-06-2005

buy low dose naltrexone online

naltrexone where to buy website buy low dose naltrexone online

naltrexone hcl

naltrexone side effects go

generico cialis costo

tadalafil generico mylan open

Max, actually I have opposite experience and I detected that a quality of burned CD dose not depend from CD transport it was played on. I mean certainly it is different from transport to transport but the burned CD has own let call it “misery delta” and this delta is more or less the same across all transports.

Certainly I did experimented with various burning speed and various blank disks.  The results are different but still they are below any accepted expectation. Also, talking about the transports: the CD burners are horrible transports, very horrible. For instance when I rip a CD cuts to the HD of that foolish Masterlink I never use the Masterlink transport but the TL0’s external digital stream - the result in quality is staggering!  The Masterlink’s HD copy sound more or less OK. However, as soon I write it to a disk (for instance I like the top of the line Apogee disks), even without rendering, then sound instantly goes to toilet. Some CD burners do better or worth job (for instance top of the line HHB or the cheapest Denons do better but still they all operate way far from a level that I would consider acceptable.

Rgs,
The Cat


Posted by Antonio J. on 01-06-2005

where can i buy duloxetine

buy duloxetine 60 mg uk
You and I must be of the very few that find CD-R copied discs sounding worse than an original CD, most people find no differences or better sound in copied discs.

I have a Marantz Pro recorder (631 I believe) and as a transport is pure crap, not even the Bidat can mend that. As a copier is clearly worse than the computer, but to make some vinyl track copies is better than any arrangement I've tried using my PC. I keep it to copy the vinyls that some friends lend me to be able to keep that wonderful music that is not available anymore.

Editing and copying CD's with the computer is quite tricky. I use the EAC (using very exigent settings to assure accuracy of reading) to extract, and Nero to arrange the disc and burn it. I use 8x speed and a Plextor burner. Media is usually "cheap" CD's but I avoid colored ones (blue ones are the worst sounding) and I prefer the golden or greeny ones. BenQ works fine. If I need to copy a whole disc, then the best program to do so is Clone CD. With this program there are differences, but smaller than using Nero, Adaptec or other programs.

The only other burner that comes close to the Plextor's quality was a Teac I had about 3 years ago, but this unit wasn't able to copy some "protected" discs. The Plextor is. All other burners by Sony, Philips, LG, etc don't make as good copies as the Plextor. Perhaps it has to do with the power applied to the laser beam while burning the CD-R.

Regards.

Posted by Max Shatsky on 01-06-2005

viagra

viagra beerotor.de
Let me understand what is the problem. You say that a copied disk to Masterlink
HD sounds OK, right?  So, why do you believe that CD-R is capable to store and
reproduce music at the level of original CD or Masterlink HD?  Do you have at
least one positive experience with CD-R? I mean, if CDR physical layer is not
stable enough for reader to recover the original signal then there is nothing
to expect from this format. CDR is definitely ok for DATA since CD-DATA stores
significantly more redundant information for error recovery. I'm not sure that
CD-AUDIO stores any redundant data at all to prevent errors.

I personally do not bother too much with CDRs, just using quality disks with
EAC->Nero with AudioMaster on Yamaha 3200. Disk quality is determined by my
friend who occasionally has time to make careful comparison of different
labels available on the market.

Max.

Posted by Romy the Cat on 01-06-2005

requip

requip

can i buy the abortion pill over the counter

buy mifeprex abortion pill online

Well, I did hear some very positive result when people did not make CDs form glass copies (as the “big people” do) but actually burned them in the “regular” CD writers. How they did it I have no idea.  Also, I have no idea what hardware/software they used.  I only know that whatever I have seen and tried were not good.

About playing it from HD… it is hard to say. It is defiantly way better then recorded to CD but still the direct output of TL0 sounds more interesting. However, I would be completely content if I would be able to get out of a CD burner the result that I get by placing music directly from HD.

BTW, playing directly from HD is always produce OK result. For instance I hate SACD, not that I hate the format but I hate ANY SACD result that I ever heard (and I believe that I head anything out there). However, there was one, and the only one experience with SACD that delivered a phenomenal result. It was in 1999 or something like this when Maitner only introduced SACD and the first Sony players weren’t widely available. I remember I stopped by in juts opened Mark Levinson store in NY and they played for me few cuts. The music was recorded directly to the HD and they played it form the same HD via a prototype Maitner pro DSD converter. THAT was good, very-very good!!! Even if I mentally subtract from that sound the crappy music that they recorded, the horrible ML speaker and the very ordinary ML electronics then still clearly the DSD performed very wonderfully. After that, the CD players and transports became available and the DSD when to toilet. Or perhaps the consumer version of the DSD converted screw the picture up.... I really do not know, and do not care. What I defiantly know, that I never since then heard SACD performing even remotely competitive to a properly implemented 16-bit PCM.

Rgs,
The Cat


Posted by Antonio J. on 01-06-2005

viagra generika

viagra
I suppose you've listened to EMM Labs, dCS and all that "top" SACD converters. I wonder if the problem is not as much in the transports or DSD/A converters as in the way they produce the recordings and make the SACD discs. It would be interesting knowing how it sounds when the DSD stream is into a HD and then it's fed to a proficient DSD DAC.

I don't like SACD either, I've not tried any of the "big boys" but all the players I've had here or listened at shops were disappointing. In fact I found DVD-A more promising, but not in the same league as PCM 16/44 when well done.

Cheers,

Antonio

Posted by Romy the Cat on 01-06-2005

acheter nifedipine 10mg

nifedipine equivalent
Antonio,

I really do not know. I did not humiliate myself with further experiments toward the SACD due to a complete luck of interest or needs. The DSD idea is unquestionably very positive but the way in which it implemented is very revolting. I personally have no SACDs on my shelves and consider all that all that SACD nervousness is just a “Patricia Barber Syndrome”

The cAT

Posted by Antonio J. on 01-06-2005

zoloft vs weed

zoloft xanax and weed
Ha ha ha, but I understand what you mean. I don't have any interest on SACD or DVD-A, I don't feel I need more resolution than the LP or CD are giving me, nor any single channel more than the two and sometimes one I usually listen to. But curiosity for new technologies is something I can't help having. I only hope the CD and vinyl remain available time enough.

Cheers,

ANT

Posted by Romy the Cat on 01-06-2005

protonix

protonix dreampix.fr
Yes, and particularly what enjoy with Patricia Barber (which is perfectly fine artist, BTW) that then when I go to the homes of an ordinary American audiophile then they have $90.000 worth of recommends Stereophile components and no more then entire collection of 6 CDs … 4 of which are unavoidably … Patricia Barber. I particularly enjoy the moment when they sing me songs about “bass on the left, the piano on the right and the voice in the middle”. I call those listeners and thier listening room as “Abu Ghraib of Audio”. Interesting that Patricia Barber’s engineers record the voice and music in opposite absolute phases… I think it does sound magnetizing for a “seasonal audiophile”…

The caT

Posted by Antonio J. on 01-06-2005

cozaar

cozaar read here
I've always found on her studio recordings (not as much on the live ones) something strange to PB's voice. Thanks for the info. I've noticed that effect in other artist's recordings, but probably due to the fact that they did it worse, sometimes much worse like having a full channel in opposite phase to the other :-P

AJ

Posted by Chirag on 01-06-2005

buy citalopram

citalopram 20mg side effects redirect
Patty Barber experience was in the Kitty's lair!  Yep, I was a PB virgin until that very moment :-)

Posted by el`Ol on 03-15-2008
The BIS used to print their equipment on their CD booklets. The one I like most in terms of sound quality uses this recorder:
http://cgi.ebay.de/Technics-Profi-DAT-Recorder-SV-260_W0QQitemZ320227893694QQihZ011QQcategoryZ96269QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Let´s see for what money it goes away. Probably 50€ or so.

Posted by Amir on 03-06-2020
https://www.tnt-audio.com/intervis/digidoe.html

LC >
Now suppose you want to copy a CD you own to play it into your car stereo system. CD copies done my means of a PC and a CD recorder aren't always identical to the original.
Since this is a very Frequently Asked Question would you please tell us something about this topic?

BK >
The key is the writer. Most of these software packages can produce perfect clones, unless you buy a package that allows you to change the levels or EQ. Those packages will always sound inferior. Don't get into that game if you're an audiophile. It's impossible to copy a CD, add EQ or adjust levels without making a sound inferior to the original. Only if you have access to the 24-bit unequalized master can you produce a CD that's better or equal to the original.

But if you are just interested in making exact copies (clones), here are the issues....
If you have a good "copying" package that produces perfect clones, then the writer must be of extremely good quality. The computer industry has made commodities out of cheap writers that can produce good data, but are terrible with audio.
The CD writer I use is the best in the world. It cost over $9000 (U.S.) and is no longer made. It has a very heavy duty base, strong laser, stable clock, stable motor, etc. Current writers can now be bought for $400-$500. Don't you think something was sacrificed in the process?
But as I said above, if you have a perfect D/A converter, then the quality of the writer is less important. Forget about the writers... you won't find a great one any more; it's economically impossible to get one made that pros will buy at that price. Instead, buy a D/A Converter and CD transport combination that makes the differences inaudible.



Posted by xandcg on 12-04-2021
These are a bunch of test files someone did to compare convertors, just pro-audio stuff. I found the link on GearSpace (former GearSlutz) sometime ago, and I don't remember which were the others electronics involved, except (IIRC) everything was the same but the tested convertors.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/z6wcsl5in76vau5/AABW2WZmQcPkhA5PfRVMo7JBa?dl=0

For what it worth, my interested is just the DAD AX32 and Merging HAPI, and it seems to me the Merging is a bit more detailed but also sound slightly more artificial.

[EDIT]

Just to add a couple of things, DAD AX32 and Merging HAPI/Horus are *supposedly* to be the two most transparent converters at the moment, with DAD being generally preferred by professionals recording classical/opera and Merging everyone else. Merging used to use DAD stuff before they launch the HORUS (HAPI is a scaled down, read cheaper, HORUS), and the ProTools converter is a rebranded DAD AX32 with ProTools DigiLink.

So, apparently classical recordings are now mainly done in DSD, with Merging Pyramix DAW the preferred one to do so, and Merging is making it really hard to record DSD using DAD AX32 + Pyramix.

[EDIT]

One thing I didn't knew about Pacific Microsonics, it was bought by Microsoft to take over their patents and so this is hard to believe the Berkeley Audio Design products (the company founded by the Pacific guys) would be anything close the the Pacific's sound since they are unlikely to be allowed to use the same technology.


Best regards, Alex.

Page 1 of 1 (16 items)