CD writing speed? and audio quality...

[James Perrett]

Linus wrote:
>
> Hello ...
>
> A potentially stupid question:
>
> Is it still important with the current crop of CDRW drives on the market to
> write cds at single speed for the best audio quality?
>
> Or is the question pointless on account of CDRW drive quality being poor
> regardless of speed ...
>
> does anyone have the lowdown on this subject?

It all depends on your particular burner and the batch of media you are
currently using. It is getting harder to find decent media now so you
may well find that low speeds don't work so well with the cheaper high
speed media.

With the drives that I've checked I find lower error rates if you use
decent media in the middle of the drive's speed range. In particular,
with Mitsui 16X media a Plextor 1210S gives good results at 4 or 8X
while a Plextor PX320 gives good results at 16X. I use a Plextor Premium
drive to give me error rate information on my masters.

Cheers.

James.

[Troy]

No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
masters at 1X to 2 X on a good quality CD.I recomend no more than 8X to 12X
for copies of the master.Higher speeds can cause to many errors and playback
can be affected on CD players.Faster is NOT better.We duplicate large runs
of CDs at 8X only for the best quality.


--
Thanks
Troy Tremblay
Alternate Root Studio
www.alternate-root.com



Linus <support@tuerkmusic.co.za> wrote in message
news:bhidbl$5tk$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> Hello ...
>
> A potentially stupid question:
>
> Is it still important with the current crop of CDRW drives on the market
to
> write cds at single speed for the best audio quality?
>
> Or is the question pointless on account of CDRW drive quality being poor
> regardless of speed ...
>
> does anyone have the lowdown on this subject?
>
> Regards
>
> Linus
>
>
>
>

[SD]

Troy wrote:

> No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
> masters at 1X to 2 X on a good quality CD.I recomend no more than 8X to 12X
> for copies of the master.Higher speeds can cause to many errors and playback
> can be affected on CD players.Faster is NOT better.We duplicate large runs
> of CDs at 8X only for the best quality.
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> Troy Tremblay
> Alternate Root Studio
> www.alternate-root.com
>
>

Is there any audible difference? I burn at 8X - 10X (old drive with no
buffer undderrun protection), and now 24X max (gives > 15X avg) on my
new drive. Ive not noticed any bad effects..

[Sugarite]

> No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
> masters at 1X to 2 X on a good quality CD.I recomend no more than 8X to
12X
> for copies of the master.Higher speeds can cause to many errors and
playback
> can be affected on CD players.Faster is NOT better.We duplicate large runs
> of CDs at 8X only for the best quality.

I disagree. Current CD media is engineered specifically for faster speeds,
meaning the dye burns more easily, and therefore can actually be less
reliable at slower speeds. For production masters, high-end media and 1x
are the only way to go, but when using cheap media for demos etc the faster
the better. Generally it's the ripping process that is inaccurate when
doing tests for accuracy. If you rip at 1x it's possible to achieve
bit-accuracy, but generally not, though it's really not a significant issue.

The only other issue is jitter, which I imagine is present on fast burns,
but is nullified by the buffering process in all DVD players and computers.
Only cheap portable cd players like discmans, ghetto blasters, and car
stereos still don't buffer. IMO any CD player that doesn't eliminate jitter
is not worth spending 24x more time to accommodate.

[Troy]

I dissagree with almost everything you are saying here.The only thing I
agree with is burning a master slow at 1X.Faster is in no way better.The
fast high speed burners of today are mostly CRAP.They are built very poorly
and perform very poorly.The faster you burn the more problems you will run
into.try sending a CD to a pressing house that is burned at 24X,they will
give it back to you.Another big problem is buffer under run technology.This
creats problems with playback on CD players also.You may get no coasters but
it does affect the playback.

As for ripping at 1X you are correct on this BUT......If you try and rip a
CD that was burned at high speeds you are going to be ripping many errors
that usually cause clicks and pops in the music.

Slower is better!!!!


Sugarite <nobody@home.com> wrote in message
news:Q2a%a.2781$q9.160871@read1.cgocable.net...
> > No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
> > masters at 1X to 2 X on a good quality CD.I recomend no more than 8X to
> 12X
> > for copies of the master.Higher speeds can cause to many errors and
> playback
> > can be affected on CD players.Faster is NOT better.We duplicate large
runs
> > of CDs at 8X only for the best quality.
>
> I disagree. Current CD media is engineered specifically for faster
speeds,
> meaning the dye burns more easily, and therefore can actually be less
> reliable at slower speeds. For production masters, high-end media and 1x
> are the only way to go, but when using cheap media for demos etc the
faster
> the better. Generally it's the ripping process that is inaccurate when
> doing tests for accuracy. If you rip at 1x it's possible to achieve
> bit-accuracy, but generally not, though it's really not a significant
issue.
>
> The only other issue is jitter, which I imagine is present on fast burns,
> but is nullified by the buffering process in all DVD players and
computers.
> Only cheap portable cd players like discmans, ghetto blasters, and car
> stereos still don't buffer. IMO any CD player that doesn't eliminate
jitter
> is not worth spending 24x more time to accommodate.
>
>

[Arny Krueger]

"Linus" <support@tuerkmusic.co.za> wrote in message
news:bhidbl$5tk$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net
> Hello ...
>
> A potentially stupid question:
>
> Is it still important with the current crop of CDRW drives on the
> market to write cds at single speed for the best audio quality?

IME no, not as receipt of LiteOn 52X burners. Specifically, media that
required special treatment in older burners, if the disc was to play in
certain problematical players, can now be recorded at the highest possible
speed.

[Luke Kaven]

There have been statistics posted about errors rates with different
combinations of media/burner/speed. The results suggested that
burning slower is in no way any guarantee of quality. The optimal
combination of media/burner/speed varied widely, and in fact, 1X burns
usually came out among the worst.

Luke

PS -- Arny Kreuger, do you happen to remember where that comparison is
posted?


"Troy" <alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote:

>I dissagree with almost everything you are saying here.The only thing I
>agree with is burning a master slow at 1X.Faster is in no way better.The
>fast high speed burners of today are mostly CRAP.They are built very poorly
>and perform very poorly.The faster you burn the more problems you will run
>into.try sending a CD to a pressing house that is burned at 24X,they will
>give it back to you.Another big problem is buffer under run technology.This
>creats problems with playback on CD players also.You may get no coasters but
>it does affect the playback.
>
>As for ripping at 1X you are correct on this BUT......If you try and rip a
>CD that was burned at high speeds you are going to be ripping many errors
>that usually cause clicks and pops in the music.
>
>Slower is better!!!!

[Linus]

Hello ...

A potentially stupid question:

Is it still important with the current crop of CDRW drives on the market to
write cds at single speed for the best audio quality?

Or is the question pointless on account of CDRW drive quality being poor
regardless of speed ...

does anyone have the lowdown on this subject?

Regards

Linus

[Brian]

In article <bhidbl$5tk$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, Linus
<support@tuerkmusic.co.za> wrote:

> Hello ...
>
> A potentially stupid question:
>
> Is it still important with the current crop of CDRW drives on the market to
> write cds at single speed for the best audio quality?

It was never important in the first place. What is critical, however,
is finding the correct media and speed for your particular burner that
results in the lowest BLER (error) rate, period.

Brian

[Brian]

In article <DT7%a.735158$3C2.17109904@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>, Troy
<alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote:

> No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
> masters at 1X to 2 X on a good quality CD.

Not true at all. As I mentioned in my other post, the only thing that
matters is finding the best combination of media and speed for your
particular burner that results in the lowest BLER rate.

Brian

[Jay - atldigi]

In article <bhidbl$5tk$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, "Linus"
<support@tuerkmusic.co.za> wrote:

> Hello ...
>
> A potentially stupid question:
>
> Is it still important with the current crop of CDRW drives on the market
> to
> write cds at single speed for the best audio quality?
>
> Or is the question pointless on account of CDRW drive quality being poor
> regardless of speed ...
>
> does anyone have the lowdown on this subject?
>
> Regards
>
> Linus
>

Depends on the drive and the media. The same media doesn't always
produce the same results on all drives, or at all speeds. There are
certainly some media that generally perform better, but for best
results, you need to try a few different CDRs on your drive at different
speed and find the best combination. Often this best combination will be
2X or 4X with modern products. Media and drives are no longer optimised
for 1X and currently in many cases, this is worse, not better. Sonic
Studio LLC offers a drive and special media optimised to work together
at 1X, and Plextor has the Plexmaster sold through Microboards that also
is optimised for 1X. Those are the expensive 1X "mastering quality" CD
recorders currently in production, but a Plextor Premium for a couple
hundred bucks running at 4X with Taiyo Yuden media is also capable of
making masters that measure quite well and replicate just fine. 1X isn't
the magic solution it once was. There are more variables to take into
account, and sometimes the results can surprise you. Speeds above 8X,
however, I'm still a little wary of. For safety sake, it's probably not
a bad idea to try to keep speeds on the lower side, but there are more
important things to worry about than if your drive does 1X burns.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

[Troy]

I run a CD Duplication business and I am in contact with many others that do
the same.We have all done our own testing and we all find the same problems
with high speed burning.The average guy burning CDs on his computer is not
going to see the affects of speed like we do.We burn thousands of CDs a
month.Even the best quality CDs have a hard time and it has alot to do with
the low prices of CDs.Alot of these companies really stretch the process and
supplies to make ends meet and the technology still isen't perfect.Its very
costly for quality control of CDs.A good source is Tape & Disc magazine.You
can throw out all the specs you want on all the burners but most companies
do the testing under perfect conditions and in the real world things are
alot different.




Brian <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:150820031915371207%nospam@nospam.com...
> In article <DT7%a.735158$3C2.17109904@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>, Troy
> <alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
> > masters at 1X to 2 X on a good quality CD.
>
> Not true at all. As I mentioned in my other post, the only thing that
> matters is finding the best combination of media and speed for your
> particular burner that results in the lowest BLER rate.
>
> Brian

[Troy]

If you are mastering there are still some high quality 1X - 4X media made by
HHB (I think they are actually mitsui)

These are perfect for most burners and optimized for SLOW burning.


Jay - atldigi <atldigi@aol.com> wrote in message
news:atldigi-E7E3F4.16284615082003@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> In article <bhidbl$5tk$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, "Linus"
> <support@tuerkmusic.co.za> wrote:
>
> > Hello ...
> >
> > A potentially stupid question:
> >
> > Is it still important with the current crop of CDRW drives on the market
> > to
> > write cds at single speed for the best audio quality?
> >
> > Or is the question pointless on account of CDRW drive quality being
poor
> > regardless of speed ...
> >
> > does anyone have the lowdown on this subject?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Linus
> >
>
> Depends on the drive and the media. The same media doesn't always
> produce the same results on all drives, or at all speeds. There are
> certainly some media that generally perform better, but for best
> results, you need to try a few different CDRs on your drive at different
> speed and find the best combination. Often this best combination will be
> 2X or 4X with modern products. Media and drives are no longer optimised
> for 1X and currently in many cases, this is worse, not better. Sonic
> Studio LLC offers a drive and special media optimised to work together
> at 1X, and Plextor has the Plexmaster sold through Microboards that also
> is optimised for 1X. Those are the expensive 1X "mastering quality" CD
> recorders currently in production, but a Plextor Premium for a couple
> hundred bucks running at 4X with Taiyo Yuden media is also capable of
> making masters that measure quite well and replicate just fine. 1X isn't
> the magic solution it once was. There are more variables to take into
> account, and sometimes the results can surprise you. Speeds above 8X,
> however, I'm still a little wary of. For safety sake, it's probably not
> a bad idea to try to keep speeds on the lower side, but there are more
> important things to worry about than if your drive does 1X burns.
>
> --
> Jay Frigoletto
> Mastersuite
> Los Angeles
> promastering.com

[David Satz]

Troy Tremblay wrote:

> No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
> masters at 1X to 2 X on a good quality CD. [ ... ]

There are plenty of folks who can measure the actual error rate on CD-Rs,
and what they report doesn't agree with the rather simplistic viewpoint
which you've stated here (with admirable certainty). What you say had some
truth to it at one point perhaps five or six years ago, but it isn't good
advice for the conditions that have obtained since that time.

Many higher-speed CD recorders when used with appropriate blanks produce
their lowest error rates at speeds such as 4X and 8X. Much depends on the
particular formulation of the blank CDs, which has continued to change all
along, up to and including the present time, and on the range of burning
powers which the recorder has available for its self-calibration.

Unfortunately the current generation of very high speed blanks (32X and
higher) has created a new set of problems for older burners. It may be
advisable to choose blanks which specifically _don't_ support very high
speed recording, even when you intend to record at the very lowest speeds.

--best regards

[John L Rice]

"Troy" <alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:A7e%a.765577$Vi5.17316587@news1.calgary.shaw. ca...
> If you are mastering there are still some high quality 1X - 4X media made
by
> HHB (I think they are actually mitsui)
>
> These are perfect for most burners and optimized for SLOW burning.


mmmmmmmaauauauauggggggggg . . . . . s l o w r o a s t e d . . . . . . . .

[LeBaron & Alrich]

User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.4.6
Lines: 29
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:24:59 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.162.27.28
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net 1061047499 209.162.27.28 (Sat, 16 Aug 2003 08:24:59 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 08:24:59 PDT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Xref: news.newshosting.com rec.audio.pro:335378

Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:

> One you find a brand that works, you need to immediately buy several
> thousand to be sure that you'll have them when you need them. Go back
> to the store for the same brand name and speed in a couple of weeks
> and chances are very good that either they won't have it (and never
> will again) or that there's a package that's identical, but what's
> inside is actually different.

No ****. I'm going through that a bit right now with some TDK's from
CostCo. I've been using them for a few years for general burns, not
"masters", and I've had no problems I could attribute to media until
now. That's burning in the HHB, a lousy LaCie, the TiBook's internal and
a Glyph/Plextor "Wildfire" burner. The new TDK's when burnt in the
TiBook have almost no reflectivity difference between the burned and
unburned area. Now people can tell me this is menaingless, that I can't
see anything relevant with my naked eye. But since the ****ed-up media
looks one way to me and the media that plays nicely looks another way I
am going to abide by my perception.

Fuji blanks from Radio Shack in Austin TX do well in my burners, and the
best I've used so far are Mitsui from <http://www.tapeplus.com/>, which
also happen to be the most expensive. When the material counts, the
difference in price is negligible.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[Richard Crowley]

> Troy wrote:
> > No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
> > masters at 1X to 2 X on a good quality CD.I recomend no more than 8X to
12X
> > for copies of the master.Higher speeds can cause to many errors and
playback
> > can be affected on CD players.Faster is NOT better.We duplicate large
runs
> > of CDs at 8X only for the best quality.

"SD" wrote ...
> Is there any audible difference? I burn at 8X - 10X (old drive with no
> buffer undderrun protection), and now 24X max (gives > 15X avg) on my
> new drive. Ive not noticed any bad effects..

You won't likely HEAR (or even measure) any difference at first.
But long-term, you have a more "contrasty" image when it is
burned slower. I would expect the quality effect to be more in
terms of longevity.

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Richard Crowley <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

> You won't likely HEAR (or even measure) any difference at first.
> But long-term, you have a more "contrasty" image when it is
> burned slower. I would expect the quality effect to be more in
> terms of longevity.

And possibly the extent to which the media will play nicely across w
wider range of machines.

--
ha

[Troy]

> And possibly the extent to which the media will play nicely across w
wider range of machines.>

Yes .....you are right as alot of CD players have problems reading high
speed burns.

I had a client in today who had this very problem with CDs done at 24X,they
skiped and wouldent play in a couple different players.Any CD I have ever
duplicated for him has had no problems at 8X.

[nuke]

I have direct experience in the drive/storage/technology industry working with
these drives and media.

The short answer: There is no one speed to recommend. 1x can be worse than 24x
on one burner and media and better on some other combination.

We test these things all the time. Since this is now a commodity technology,
price supercedes quality. Burners are all over the map in quality. Media is
even worse.

What it all boils down to is you got to figure out what media works best in
your drive at what particular speed. Unfortunately, without equipment, all you
can do is burn some samples and see how they do.

If you are burning masters for replication, ask for an error report and see how
you are doing.

Stick with a brand of drive you've heard of and find some media that works well
with it and buy a bunch of it.

If you just got to pick something, pick 4x.
--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

[Om_Audio]

I use a Yamaha ide burner that has a nifty "audio master" mode which is a 1x
variant:

http://www.cdrlabs.com/articles/index.php?articleid=16

http://www.yamahamultimedia.com/yec/tech/am_01.asp

Om

"Linus" <support@tuerkmusic.co.za> wrote in message
news:bhidbl$5tk$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> Hello ...
>
> A potentially stupid question:
>
> Is it still important with the current crop of CDRW drives on the market
to
> write cds at single speed for the best audio quality?
>
> Or is the question pointless on account of CDRW drive quality being poor
> regardless of speed ...
>
> does anyone have the lowdown on this subject?
>
> Regards
>
> Linus
>
>
>
>

[Troy]

Some very good reading.It also backs up what I have been saying about faster
is not better.


Om_Audio <clifsound@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_9n%a.125163$cF.33797@rwcrnsc53...
> I use a Yamaha ide burner that has a nifty "audio master" mode which is a
1x
> variant:
>
> http://www.cdrlabs.com/articles/index.php?articleid=16
>
> http://www.yamahamultimedia.com/yec/tech/am_01.asp
>
> Om
>
> "Linus" <support@tuerkmusic.co.za> wrote in message
> news:bhidbl$5tk$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> > Hello ...
> >
> > A potentially stupid question:
> >
> > Is it still important with the current crop of CDRW drives on the market
> to
> > write cds at single speed for the best audio quality?
> >
> > Or is the question pointless on account of CDRW drive quality being
poor
> > regardless of speed ...
> >
> > does anyone have the lowdown on this subject?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Linus
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Laurence Payne]

>I run a CD Duplication business and I am in contact with many others that do
>the same.We have all done our own testing and we all find the same problems
>with high speed burning.The average guy burning CDs on his computer is not
>going to see the affects of speed like we do.We burn thousands of CDs a
>month.Even the best quality CDs have a hard time and it has alot to do with
>the low prices of CDs.Alot of these companies really stretch the process and
>supplies to make ends meet and the technology still isen't perfect.Its very
>costly for quality control of CDs.A good source is Tape & Disc magazine.You
>can throw out all the specs you want on all the burners but most companies
>do the testing under perfect conditions and in the real world things are
>alot different.

Great! An expert!
So, tell us. What media, what speed?

[Mike Rivers]

In article <e6a68193.0308151653.2edef379@posting.google.com> DSatz@msn.com writes:

> Unfortunately the current generation of very high speed blanks (32X and
> higher) has created a new set of problems for older burners. It may be
> advisable to choose blanks which specifically _don't_ support very high
> speed recording, even when you intend to record at the very lowest speeds.

They're getting hard to find these days. It's the way of computer
stuff.

Any reliable sources?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)

[Mike Rivers]

In article <20030816031528.06235.00001632@mb-m03.aol.com> larrysb@aol.commode writes:

> What it all boils down to is you got to figure out what media works best in
> your drive at what particular speed. Unfortunately, without equipment, all you
> can do is burn some samples and see how they do.

> Stick with a brand of drive you've heard of and find some media that works well
> with it and buy a bunch of it.

Burning test samples is no problem, but listening to them to see if
there are any problems is too much trouble for most people. You can
burn while doing something else, but you have to actually listen in
real time and concentrate on what you're hearing to be sure that it
worked. An error report number from a test program may not relate to
actual performance.

One you find a brand that works, you need to immediately buy several
thousand to be sure that you'll have them when you need them. Go back
to the store for the same brand name and speed in a couple of weeks
and chances are very good that either they won't have it (and never
will again) or that there's a package that's identical, but what's
inside is actually different.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)

[Laurence Payne]

>Stick with a brand of drive you've heard of and find some media that works well
>with it and buy a bunch of it.
>
>If you just got to pick something, pick 4x.

Indeed.
My advice has always been the same. Keep the speed moderate.
Hopefully you won't get offered 1X, 2X if the media isn't suited to
these low speeds. But choose from the low range of what's offered.

Then, yesterday, I installed a new Sony CD-RW drive for a client. We
burnt a disk at 4X which wouldn't play in ant audio player I could
find. Then tried at 20X - perfect.

Not that one disk proves anything :=)

[EggHd]

I am having good luck with the maxell 650 meg CDRs that I was getting at
Staples with my old trusty Que Fire 8X. I have about 150 left and just bought
a new 100 (for 12 bucks) but they are now silver. The look better but I
haven't opened them yet.

The first Maxell that worked well with my burner were "certifed for 16X speeds.
I have still have a handful of those. I also have a bunch of 40X Maxells
which also seem to work well with my burner.

The new silver ones are 48X "rated"

I had posted this before but I recently burned some masters for the EMI plant
using apogee CDs and one got rejected due to "too thin coating causing errors".
I never heard that before. I resent one of the 16x Maxells.




---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Laurence Payne]

>Burning test samples is no problem, but listening to them to see if
>there are any problems is too much trouble for most people. You can
>burn while doing something else, but you have to actually listen in
>real time and concentrate on what you're hearing to be sure that it
>worked. An error report number from a test program may not relate to
>actual performance.

I've found it advisable to turn off Buffer Under-run protection
(BURN-proof) when it's offered. The burn process would continue after
an error, but it seemed to put a glitch into an audio CD.

Or maybe those clicks were coming from somewhere else. I don't burn
hundreds of CDs and haven't tested thoroughly. But, since turning off
BURN-proof on a couple of machines, I've had a couple of coasters but
no disks returned because of glitches.

[Scott Dorsey]

EggHd <egghd@aol.com> wrote:
>I had posted this before but I recently burned some masters for the EMI plant
>using apogee CDs and one got rejected due to "too thin coating causing errors".
> I never heard that before. I resent one of the 16x Maxells.

More and more of these higher speed discs are coming out, and while they
can be written very quickly, they tend to have very high error rates no
matter what speed they are written on. Just not acceptable for audio
use. The problem is that it's hard to tell WHAT you are buying until you
get it home and actually measure error rates.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[EggHd]

<< The problem is that it's hard to tell WHAT you are buying until you
get it home and actually measure error rates. >>

And I haven't found a Mac program to mesure error rates.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Luke Kaven]

"Om_Audio" <clifsound@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I use a Yamaha ide burner that has a nifty "audio master" mode which is a 1x
>variant:
>
>http://www.cdrlabs.com/articles/index.php?articleid=16
>
>http://www.yamahamultimedia.com/yec/tech/am_01.asp
>
>Om

It isn't a 1X variant according to the text on those sites:

"Yamaha decided to deal with this by creating a process they called
Audio Master. They decided to artificially slow down the speed of
burning by increasing the length of the pits and lands. Although the
disc is still spinning at its 24x or 32x speed, the density of bits on
the CD's goes down. The normal 1.2 m/s linear speed turns into 1.4
m/s. 74 minute discs suddenly only hold 63 minutes, and 80 minute
discs now only hold 68 minutes due to the extended pit length.
Although the feature sizes are increased, they're still within Red
Book standards. Now the reader's laser has more room with which to
sample and determine if it's actually looking at a pit or a land."

[Troy]

This is why you should buy Grade A duplicator quality CDs.Don't buy the CRAP
from the stores most of it is garbage.


Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bhlmm4$apv$1@panix2.panix.com...
> EggHd <egghd@aol.com> wrote:
> >I had posted this before but I recently burned some masters for the EMI
plant
> >using apogee CDs and one got rejected due to "too thin coating causing
errors".
> > I never heard that before. I resent one of the 16x Maxells.
>
> More and more of these higher speed discs are coming out, and while they
> can be written very quickly, they tend to have very high error rates no
> matter what speed they are written on. Just not acceptable for audio
> use. The problem is that it's hard to tell WHAT you are buying until you
> get it home and actually measure error rates.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Troy]

Yes this is true.....always turn off the buffer under run.It causes problems
with playback on CD players.


Laurence Payne <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gbmsjvsksf850sjqttk6fl40mcbi72l1vs@4ax.com...
>
> >Burning test samples is no problem, but listening to them to see if
> >there are any problems is too much trouble for most people. You can
> >burn while doing something else, but you have to actually listen in
> >real time and concentrate on what you're hearing to be sure that it
> >worked. An error report number from a test program may not relate to
> >actual performance.
>
> I've found it advisable to turn off Buffer Under-run protection
> (BURN-proof) when it's offered. The burn process would continue after
> an error, but it seemed to put a glitch into an audio CD.
>
> Or maybe those clicks were coming from somewhere else. I don't burn
> hundreds of CDs and haven't tested thoroughly. But, since turning off
> BURN-proof on a couple of machines, I've had a couple of coasters but
> no disks returned because of glitches.

[Troy]

Its kind of like running a real to real at 15 ips or 30 ips.You get less
time on the CD.


Luke Kaven <luke@smallsrecords.com> wrote in message
news:u20tjv41q2k0ck0572kq0alei8v620s9p3@4ax.com...
> "Om_Audio" <clifsound@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I use a Yamaha ide burner that has a nifty "audio master" mode which is a
1x
> >variant:
> >
> >http://www.cdrlabs.com/articles/index.php?articleid=16
> >
> >http://www.yamahamultimedia.com/yec/tech/am_01.asp
> >
> >Om
>
> It isn't a 1X variant according to the text on those sites:
>
> "Yamaha decided to deal with this by creating a process they called
> Audio Master. They decided to artificially slow down the speed of
> burning by increasing the length of the pits and lands. Although the
> disc is still spinning at its 24x or 32x speed, the density of bits on
> the CD's goes down. The normal 1.2 m/s linear speed turns into 1.4
> m/s. 74 minute discs suddenly only hold 63 minutes, and 80 minute
> discs now only hold 68 minutes due to the extended pit length.
> Although the feature sizes are increased, they're still within Red
> Book standards. Now the reader's laser has more room with which to
> sample and determine if it's actually looking at a pit or a land."
>
>

[Troy]

OK

Here you go:

We use Plextor,Teac, and smart drive 2 in our machines.

I recomend these 3 burners.

Recomended media (that should work in any burner)

Duplicator Grade A CDs (with a white thermal top for added protection).

Mistsui,Taiyo Yuden,Ritek (Diamond Silver),Prodisc (diamond silver).All
these CDs work good at 1X with no problems.We have also had good luck with
some of the CMC CDs also.

Buy them by the case Mitsui and Taiyo Yuden come in cases of 600 and Ritek
and Prodisc come in cases of 500

For mastering I recomend HHB gold or silver CDs,Kodak infoguard ,but I would
go with the HHBs as my first choice.






Laurence Payne <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lresjvcuusub0pld84478j3gfkt60bho8b@4ax.com...
> >I run a CD Duplication business and I am in contact with many others that
do
> >the same.We have all done our own testing and we all find the same
problems
> >with high speed burning.The average guy burning CDs on his computer is
not
> >going to see the affects of speed like we do.We burn thousands of CDs a
> >month.Even the best quality CDs have a hard time and it has alot to do
with
> >the low prices of CDs.Alot of these companies really stretch the process
and
> >supplies to make ends meet and the technology still isen't perfect.Its
very
> >costly for quality control of CDs.A good source is Tape & Disc
magazine.You
> >can throw out all the specs you want on all the burners but most
companies
> >do the testing under perfect conditions and in the real world things are
> >alot different.
>
> Great! An expert!
> So, tell us. What media, what speed?

[Bob Olhsson]

In article <znr1061035495k@trad>, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com>
wrote:

>Any reliable sources?

Fuji AUDIO or "general purpose" blanks at Target!

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN 615.385.8051
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
http://www.hyperback.com/olhsson.html
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!

[EggHd]

<< Fuji AUDIO or "general purpose" blanks at Target! >>

MY buddy just bought some target CDR's. I'll check them out.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Bob Cain]

Richard Crowley wrote:
>
> You won't likely HEAR (or even measure) any difference at first.
> But long-term, you have a more "contrasty" image when it is
> burned slower.

Why might that be?

> I would expect the quality effect to be more in
> terms of longevity.

And that?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Richard Crowley]

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:3F3EC8EA.D0F4B5DD@arcanemethods.com...
>
>
> Richard Crowley wrote:
> >
> > You won't likely HEAR (or even measure) any difference at first.
> > But long-term, you have a more "contrasty" image when it is
> > burned slower.
>
> Why might that be?

And by "that" you are referring to what exactly?

Why won't your HEAR the difference?
Because ones are ones and zeroes are zeroes and Red Book
has extensive error correction which most cousumers can't hear?

Why is it more "contrasty"?
Because it has longer "exposure time" at lower speeds?

> > I would expect the quality effect to be more in
> > terms of longevity.
>
> And that?

Greater "distance" between "1" and "0".
Takes longer to decay to unreadable
(by whatever mechanism.)
Much the same with any storage medium.

[Bob Cain]

Richard Crowley wrote:
>
> "Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
> news:3F3EC8EA.D0F4B5DD@arcanemethods.com...
> >
> >
> > Richard Crowley wrote:
> > >
> > > You won't likely HEAR (or even measure) any difference at first.
> > > But long-term, you have a more "contrasty" image when it is
> > > burned slower.
> >
> > Why might that be?
>
> And by "that" you are referring to what exactly?

I guess that's what I was asking you.

>
> Why won't your HEAR the difference?
> Because ones are ones and zeroes are zeroes and Red Book
> has extensive error correction which most cousumers can't hear?
>
> Why is it more "contrasty"?
> Because it has longer "exposure time" at lower speeds?

Oh. Never mind.

>
> > > I would expect the quality effect to be more in
> > > terms of longevity.
> >
> > And that?
>
> Greater "distance" between "1" and "0".
> Takes longer to decay to unreadable
> (by whatever mechanism.)
> Much the same with any storage medium.

Er, ok.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Scott Dorsey]

Troy <alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote:
>This is why you should buy Grade A duplicator quality CDs.Don't buy the CRAP
>from the stores most of it is garbage.

Yes, but how can you tell what any given disc is? You can't tell what the
quality is until you get it home.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Troy]

If you buy duplicator Grade A CDs by the case you can tell what they are as
some CDs have a name on it or by reading the case.Ask for the ones I
mentioned in this thread and you can't go wrong.


Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bhmude$c40$1@panix2.panix.com...
> Troy <alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >This is why you should buy Grade A duplicator quality CDs.Don't buy the
CRAP
> >from the stores most of it is garbage.
>
> Yes, but how can you tell what any given disc is? You can't tell what the
> quality is until you get it home.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

In article <wdw%a.743618$3C2.17274727@news3.calgary.shaw.ca> alternate-root@shaw.ca writes:

> This is why you should buy Grade A duplicator quality CDs.Don't buy the CRAP
> from the stores most of it is garbage.

Do the millions of people who use that "garbage" for data backup,
pictures, MP3 files, etc. have these problems? Clearly it isn't crap,
it's just that audio people who try to save a little money (because
everyone knows how cheap blank CDs are) are using the wrong tools for
the job.

Like everything else audio, until there's a consumer need for it, the
market will be small and therefore the price will be high. I'm not
just talking about CD blanks here, but drives too. Remember just a few
short years ago, it cost $20,000 for a device to record an audio CD in
real time? For a while people were arguing the merits of Plextor vs.
Sony vs. TEAC vs. Yamaha drives and Plextor was the clear winner for
making reliable disks (as well as the clear loser in price, being as
much as 4 times the cost of the utility grade drives). Today we can buy
a Plextor Premium drive for $135 (which is still 4x the cost of a
utility grade drive), but is it still as good as it uster be? I dunno.

It seems that the most important characteristic of blanks when it
comes to making reliable audio CDs on ordinary drives is rapidly
disappearing. Is a 52X speed rated premium brand really better for
making an audio CD than a cheapie of the same speed? Consistently? I
don't think we have enough data to find out, because most people, once
they find one or two out of a stack of blanks that don't work
immediately stop using them and switch to another (possibly enen
identical) brand.

Maybe what we really need, for those who care about quality, is a new
series of audio-intended CD-R drives, at a premium price. How much
would you pay to stop making coasters? And for a drive that doesn't
wear out after a year of studio service? Yamaha has apparently given
it some thought with a drive with this "audio master" writing mode.
Has anyone make a couple of thousand CDs with one of those yet, using
a variety of blanks? Or will it disappear from the market before we
have sufficient data to prove the value of its design?

I wish I could say "speak with your wallet" but there's hardly anyone
who counts who's listening.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)

[Mike Rivers]

In article <dgw%a.743646$3C2.17275068@news3.calgary.shaw.ca> alternate-root@shaw.ca writes:

> Yes this is true.....always turn off the buffer under run.It causes problems
> with playback on CD players.

Would someone like to update the principle of "buffer under-run" for
me? This used to be the major cause of errors on a CD-R as I recall.
You'd start burning, you'd get the error message, and it would stop.

So did the "protection" help prevent the problem that was causing the
error message, or did it simply allow the drive to go on working after
an error condition was detected?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)

[Mike Rivers]

In article <Tyw%a.740546$ro6.15203833@news2.calgary.shaw.ca> alternate-root@shaw.ca writes:

> Buy them by the case Mitsui and Taiyo Yuden come in cases of 600 and Ritek
> and Prodisc come in cases of 500

What do you recommend for someone who has had CD-R capability for
about two years and still hasn't gone through is first purchase of two
50-packs? Do I need to pay a buck or more a piece for small quantities
of your recommended disks? If so, I'd rather live with a couple of
errors now and then.

If someone says the CD I made for them won't play in their CD player,
I have two stock replies:

1. "Do you have another CD player?"

(CD players are like cats. Nobody has just one) Usually it will play
in another player but for some reason the thought of trying it
somewhere else never occurs to them. I don't make finished CDs,
only reference copies, so it doesn't matter to me if they don't
work in every player. This isn't important at my working level. Of
course it would be important if my gig was making production CDs.

2. "I could make you a cassette copy."



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)

[Brad Blackwood]

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1061122056k@trad...
>
> In article <wdw%a.743618$3C2.17274727@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>
alternate-root@shaw.ca writes:
>
> > This is why you should buy Grade A duplicator quality CDs.Don't buy the
CRAP
> > from the stores most of it is garbage.
>
> Do the millions of people who use that "garbage" for data backup,
> pictures, MP3 files, etc. have these problems? Clearly it isn't crap,
> it's just that audio people who try to save a little money (because
> everyone knows how cheap blank CDs are) are using the wrong tools for
> the job.

Umm, EC for data is far more robust than for audio CDs. The quality of the
writer and media is far more important in audio for that reason...
-----------------
Brad Blackwood
www.euphonicmasters.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <znr1061122056k@trad>, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>In article <wdw%a.743618$3C2.17274727@news3.calgary.shaw.ca> alternate-root@shaw.ca writes:
>
>> This is why you should buy Grade A duplicator quality CDs.Don't buy the CRAP
>> from the stores most of it is garbage.
>
>Do the millions of people who use that "garbage" for data backup,
>pictures, MP3 files, etc. have these problems?

Yes, but because of the added error correction in the CD-ROM format, it
is less of an issue for them. A couple E32s, and an audio disc is junk.
On a CD-ROM it doesn't make a bit of difference.

>Clearly it isn't crap,
>it's just that audio people who try to save a little money (because
>everyone knows how cheap blank CDs are) are using the wrong tools for
>the job.

It's crap. Error rates on the newer high speed discs are far higher than
on the older discs. 74 minute discs are becoming harder and harder to
find, and the old 63 minute discs (which had an even coarser pitch and
tracked even better) are nonexistent.

>Like everything else audio, until there's a consumer need for it, the
>market will be small and therefore the price will be high.

That is okay. What I am complaining about is that many things (like 63
minute blanks) have become totally unobtainable. I was paying $25 each
for blanks wholesale when I got my first Studer CD-R recorder. I was
getting much lower error rates than I am getting even today with the
Mitsuis. There are a few jobs now and then when I'd be willing to pay
$25 a pop today for the lower error rates. But I couldn't get them at
any price.

>It seems that the most important characteristic of blanks when it
>comes to making reliable audio CDs on ordinary drives is rapidly
>disappearing. Is a 52X speed rated premium brand really better for
>making an audio CD than a cheapie of the same speed? Consistently? I
>don't think we have enough data to find out, because most people, once
>they find one or two out of a stack of blanks that don't work
>immediately stop using them and switch to another (possibly enen
>identical) brand.

ALL of them seem to be getting worse.

>Maybe what we really need, for those who care about quality, is a new
>series of audio-intended CD-R drives, at a premium price. How much
>would you pay to stop making coasters? And for a drive that doesn't
>wear out after a year of studio service? Yamaha has apparently given
>it some thought with a drive with this "audio master" writing mode.
>Has anyone make a couple of thousand CDs with one of those yet, using
>a variety of blanks? Or will it disappear from the market before we
>have sufficient data to prove the value of its design?

These already exist. The standalone machines are clearly designed for
audio, and there are models like the high end Plextor which are specifically
intended for audio and have some features like error reporting that are
designed for the audio users.

What does not exist are decent blanks intended for audio work. Other than
the Mitsuis and Taiyo Yudens, and I wonder how long those will be around.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[GagMe@aol.com]

I've learned something important from this thread and it goes like this--

People who post on Friday-Saturday are more likely to be full of ****
fakers.

[Jerry Steiger]

"Troy" <alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:0jw%a.772309$Vi5.17476946@news1.calgary.shaw. ca...
> Its kind of like running a real to real at 15 ips or 30 ips.You get less
> time on the CD.


Is your Freudian slip showing on reel to reel?

Jerry Steiger

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1061122231k@trad
> In article <dgw%a.743646$3C2.17275068@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>
> alternate-root@shaw.ca writes:
>
>> Yes this is true.....always turn off the buffer under run.It causes
>> problems with playback on CD players.
>
> Would someone like to update the principle of "buffer under-run" for
> me? This used to be the major cause of errors on a CD-R as I recall.
> You'd start burning, you'd get the error message, and it would stop.
>
> So did the "protection" help prevent the problem that was causing the
> error message, or did it simply allow the drive to go on working after
> an error condition was detected?

Buffer underrun protection changed how CD burners respond to running out of
data to burn. The old technique involved aborting the job and creating a
coaster. The new technique allows the burn to be transparently restarted
when data again becomes available. One CD guru described it as involving
finally giving burners about the same smarts as any red book compatible
audio CD drive.

[Troy]

You can also buy them in packs of 100 if you don't use that many.


Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1061122560k@trad...
>
> In article <Tyw%a.740546$ro6.15203833@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>
alternate-root@shaw.ca writes:
>
> > Buy them by the case Mitsui and Taiyo Yuden come in cases of 600 and
Ritek
> > and Prodisc come in cases of 500
>
> What do you recommend for someone who has had CD-R capability for
> about two years and still hasn't gone through is first purchase of two
> 50-packs? Do I need to pay a buck or more a piece for small quantities
> of your recommended disks? If so, I'd rather live with a couple of
> errors now and then.
>
> If someone says the CD I made for them won't play in their CD player,
> I have two stock replies:
>
> 1. "Do you have another CD player?"
>
> (CD players are like cats. Nobody has just one) Usually it will play
> in another player but for some reason the thought of trying it
> somewhere else never occurs to them. I don't make finished CDs,
> only reference copies, so it doesn't matter to me if they don't
> work in every player. This isn't important at my working level. Of
> course it would be important if my gig was making production CDs.
>
> 2. "I could make you a cassette copy."
>
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)

[Troy]

No my french is showing ;-)


Jerry Steiger <gwsteiger@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bhoc8c$1horn$1@ID-188822.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Troy" <alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:0jw%a.772309$Vi5.17476946@news1.calgary.shaw. ca...
> > Its kind of like running a real to real at 15 ips or 30 ips.You get less
> > time on the CD.
>
>
> Is your Freudian slip showing on reel to reel?
>
> Jerry Steiger
>
>

[GagMe@aol.com]

GagMe@aol.com wrote:

>
>I've learned something important from this thread and it goes like this--
>
>People who post on Friday-Saturday are more likely to be full of ****
>fakers.


And I see Sunday is much better. Thanks.

[Troy]

Are you saying I am full of ****?


<GagMe@aol.com> wrote in message
news:nlgvjvsbe6jpiqa94e9e7p5gf4u4aqj8j9@4ax.com...
> GagMe@aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> >I've learned something important from this thread and it goes like this--
> >
> >People who post on Friday-Saturday are more likely to be full of ****
> >fakers.
>
>
> And I see Sunday is much better. Thanks.
>

[Brian]

In article <R2e%a.733244$ro6.15070262@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>, Troy
<alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote:

> I run a CD Duplication business and I am in contact with many others that do
> the same.We have all done our own testing and we all find the same problems
> with high speed burning.The average guy burning CDs on his computer is not
> going to see the affects of speed like we do.We burn thousands of CDs a
> month.Even the best quality CDs have a hard time and it has alot to do with
> the low prices of CDs.Alot of these companies really stretch the process and
> supplies to make ends meet and the technology still isen't perfect.Its very
> costly for quality control of CDs.A good source is Tape & Disc magazine.You
> can throw out all the specs you want on all the burners but most companies
> do the testing under perfect conditions and in the real world things are
> alot different.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

The point of my original post was that while I certainly don't disagree
that in general slower is better (you're almost always going to get a
better burn at, say, 8x than 24x), it's not an absolute rule - if you
get a lower BLER burning at 8x than 4x then, for your particular
combination of media and hardware 8x (i.e faster) is better. If you
change either one then you have to test again.

I had an old Yamaha drive that got the best rate at its highest speed,
16x, using TDK discs - any other brand at any other speed, as well as
the TDK blanks at all lower speeds (1x, 2x, 4x, 8x, 12x) resulted in
substantially higher error rates - still within acceptable spec, but
higher nonetheless.

Of course buying the best quality media is critical - those "HiVal"
discs that people buy in bulk on the cheap are just crap - my general
rule of thumb is if you don't recognize the manufacturer as being a
known manufacturer in the blanks industry stay away - those generic
discs *may* be quality blanks rebranded, but then again they may not.
And anyone who is actually working in the industry (studios, mastering
houses, etc.) have absolutely no excuse not to buy good discs - if I'm
in a studio and see the guy is using some generic crap I run the other
way, fast.
8^)

Brian
(works at Disc Makers)

[Mike Rivers]

In article <bho1mn$3e5$1@panix2.panix.com> kludge@panix.com writes:

> >Do the millions of people who use that "garbage" for data backup,
> >pictures, MP3 files, etc. have these problems?
>
> A couple E32s, and an audio disc is junk.
> On a CD-ROM it doesn't make a bit of difference.

That's sort of my point. CD-R technology that's cheap and readily
available isn't designed for audio use, it's designed for utility
computer applications. DAT was like that, too, but it seemed to work
better for our use.

> It's crap. Error rates on the newer high speed discs are far higher than
> on the older discs.

But if it doesn't matter for computer appicaitons, and it makes the
disks more valuable to the computer users, it's what we find in the
market. Laws of supply and demand work only over a limited range. When
the demand gets sufficently low (like people who care about making
good audio CDs on a CD-R drive), nobody will offer a supply. We have
people making premium mics and preamps in their basement to fill a
limited demand, but I don't know how to make CD-R blanks in a
basement.

> >Like everything else audio, until there's a consumer need for it, the
> >market will be small and therefore the price will be high.
>
> That is okay. What I am complaining about is that many things (like 63
> minute blanks) have become totally unobtainable. I was paying $25 each
> for blanks wholesale when I got my first Studer CD-R recorder.

I had similar concerns with the Mackie hard disk recorder. Hard drives
with lower than 30 GB capacity were becoming harder to find. Now that
I can use drives up to 120 GB, I have a temporary reprieve, but even
today I see more sales on 180-200 GB drives than I do on 40/80/120 GB
models. I expect that those will evaporate from the marketplace within
the next couple of years.

> There are a few jobs now and then when I'd be willing to pay
> $25 a pop today for the lower error rates. But I couldn't get them at
> any price.

That works if you're charging by the job, but if you charge by time
and materials, people know how cheap CD-R blanks are.

> These already exist. The standalone machines are clearly designed for
> audio

My TASCAM CD reocrder has what's probably some sort of stock Phillips
drive in it (surprised that it isn't TEAC). Though every time it's
worked, it's made a good CD, it has a tendency to fail some disks with
an "OPC" message. According to the manual, this means either that the
disk has been inserted more than 99 times (I guess that fills up the
calibration area) or that it's dirty. When that happens, I put in
another disk and it usually works.

> What does not exist are decent blanks intended for audio work. Other than
> the Mitsuis and Taiyo Yudens, and I wonder how long those will be around.

Do these people know about requirements for audio, or are they just
making good blanks (for the while)? Since the consumer copy protected
audio CD recorders are obviously designed for audio, I wonder if the
blanks designed for them are better for recording audio on a standard
CD-R drive? I think they'll work, but I've never tried them.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)

[Steve King]

"Brian" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:170820031507206054%nospam@nospam.com...
> In article <R2e%a.733244$ro6.15070262@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>, Troy
> <alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote:

SNIP

> The point of my original post was that while I certainly don't disagree
> that in general slower is better (you're almost always going to get a
> better burn at, say, 8x than 24x), it's not an absolute rule - if you
> get a lower BLER burning at 8x than 4x then, for your particular
> combination of media and hardware 8x (i.e faster) is better. If you
> change either one then you have to test again.
>
> I had an old Yamaha drive that got the best rate at its highest speed,
> 16x, using TDK discs - any other brand at any other speed, as well as
> the TDK blanks at all lower speeds (1x, 2x, 4x, 8x, 12x) resulted in
> substantially higher error rates - still within acceptable spec, but
> higher nonetheless.
>
> Of course buying the best quality media is critical - those "HiVal"
> discs that people buy in bulk on the cheap are just crap - my general
> rule of thumb is if you don't recognize the manufacturer as being a
> known manufacturer in the blanks industry stay away - those generic
> discs *may* be quality blanks rebranded, but then again they may not.
> And anyone who is actually working in the industry (studios, mastering
> houses, etc.) have absolutely no excuse not to buy good discs - if I'm
> in a studio and see the guy is using some generic crap I run the other
> way, fast.
> 8^)
>
> Brian
> (works at Disc Makers)

So, Brian, how can I determine an error rate for my burner/media combo? It
hasn't happened in a while, but a year or so ago I was getting CDs rejected
by a local Chicago duplicator, be cause they "contained too many errors". I
was using a Plextor SCSI burner, Taiyo Yuden blanks, burning at several
different speeds... from 4X to 12X, the fastest that old burner would go.
Finally, the problem got solved, when the duplicating house burned my
regular order of 250 CDs on an older duplication setup, where they ran fine.

How can I know before I send off a CD to a duplicator whether there are
errors... or how many, or?????

And, no a Google search did not find an answer.

Steve King

[John L Rice]

"Steve King" <steve@steveking.net> wrote in message
news:W2R%a.170980$YN5.113717@sccrnsc01...
> "Brian" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:170820031507206054%nospam@nospam.com...
> > In article <R2e%a.733244$ro6.15070262@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>, Troy
> > <alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > The point of my original post was that while I certainly don't disagree
> > that in general slower is better (you're almost always going to get a
> > better burn at, say, 8x than 24x), it's not an absolute rule - if you
> > get a lower BLER burning at 8x than 4x then, for your particular
> > combination of media and hardware 8x (i.e faster) is better. If you
> > change either one then you have to test again.
> >
> > I had an old Yamaha drive that got the best rate at its highest speed,
> > 16x, using TDK discs - any other brand at any other speed, as well as
> > the TDK blanks at all lower speeds (1x, 2x, 4x, 8x, 12x) resulted in
> > substantially higher error rates - still within acceptable spec, but
> > higher nonetheless.
> >
> > Of course buying the best quality media is critical - those "HiVal"
> > discs that people buy in bulk on the cheap are just crap - my general
> > rule of thumb is if you don't recognize the manufacturer as being a
> > known manufacturer in the blanks industry stay away - those generic
> > discs *may* be quality blanks rebranded, but then again they may not.
> > And anyone who is actually working in the industry (studios, mastering
> > houses, etc.) have absolutely no excuse not to buy good discs - if I'm
> > in a studio and see the guy is using some generic crap I run the other
> > way, fast.
> > 8^)
> >
> > Brian
> > (works at Disc Makers)
>
> So, Brian, how can I determine an error rate for my burner/media combo?
It
> hasn't happened in a while, but a year or so ago I was getting CDs
rejected
> by a local Chicago duplicator, be cause they "contained too many errors".
I
> was using a Plextor SCSI burner, Taiyo Yuden blanks, burning at several
> different speeds... from 4X to 12X, the fastest that old burner would go.
> Finally, the problem got solved, when the duplicating house burned my
> regular order of 250 CDs on an older duplication setup, where they ran
fine.
>
> How can I know before I send off a CD to a duplicator whether there are
> errors... or how many, or?????
>
> And, no a Google search did not find an answer.
>
> Steve King


The least expensive solution I know of is to get the Plextor Premium drive
which can check error rates :
http://www.plextor.com/english/products/Premium.html

They are $119 at http://www.allstarshop.com etc

Best of luck!

John L Rice
Drummer@ImJohn.com

[GagMe@aol.com]

"Troy" <alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote:

>Are you saying I am full of ****?

Well, "full" is obviously an exaggeration...

You wrote:
>No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
>masters at 1X to 2 X.

This statement conflicts with the experience of others (both users and
burner manufacturers) who find that the lowest error rates are more
burner-and-media specific than this simple formula. I'll concede that you
speak from your own experience.

You wrote:
>Mistsui,Taiyo Yuden,Ritek (Diamond Silver),Prodisc (diamond silver).All
>these CDs work good at 1X with no problems.We have also had good luck with
>some of the CMC CDs also.

You've named every manufacturer I know. Ritek and CMC are well-known
low-end manufacturers and indeed their undamaged yet unreadable disks have
come my way. Never so for Mitsui and TY. Plextor recommends TY (and
Verbatim!)

You wrote
>This is why you should buy Grade A duplicator quality CDs.
>Don't buy the CRAP from the stores most of it is garbage.

I did a Google search for "duplicator quality" cds and found nothing but
claims for duplicator machines. The name itself implies to me an optimum
cost-quality point rather than a superior quality disk. Do you have any
additional info?

[Mike Rivers]

In article <612dnWWvqbPIKqKiXTWJjw@comcast.com> arnyk@hotpop.com writes:

> Buffer underrun protection changed how CD burners respond to running out of
> data to burn. The old technique involved aborting the job and creating a
> coaster. The new technique allows the burn to be transparently restarted
> when data again becomes available.

That's what I thought it meant. But doesn't data get read off the hard
drive faster than it can be written on the CD (the reason why there's
a buffer in the first place)? Or is this protection feature only
beneficial to those who have other processes running that might keep
the data source drive occupied long enough for the buffer to empty?

What am I saying? I'm running Windows. _I_ have processes running
that I know nothing about, and every once in a while, even on the
comptuter that's isolated from the Internet, I see the disk activity
light go on for several seconds and things slow down. No fast find, no
screen savers, no virus checkers, no automatic updates - I haven't a
clue as to what's going on there, not even when examining the list of
processes running.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)

[GagMe@aol.com]

> I haven't a
>clue as to what's going on there, not even when examining the list of
>processes running.

In the Mickeysoft world, the list of active tasks doesn't show all the
active tasks. One would see a full list only by using MS's "Procview" or
any one of the other (better) process viewers.

Interpreting what you then find is another story... Google can help with
that.

[Laurence Payne]

>I dissagree with almost everything you are saying here.The only thing I
>agree with is burning a master slow at 1X.Faster is in no way better.

You may have been right a few years ago.
You certainly aren't right now.

[Laurence Payne]

>Would someone like to update the principle of "buffer under-run" for
>me? This used to be the major cause of errors on a CD-R as I recall.
>You'd start burning, you'd get the error message, and it would stop.
>
>So did the "protection" help prevent the problem that was causing the
>error message, or did it simply allow the drive to go on working after
>an error condition was detected?

I believe it allowed the burn process to pause while it waited for
more data.

[Laurence Payne]

>That's what I thought it meant. But doesn't data get read off the hard
>drive faster than it can be written on the CD (the reason why there's
>a buffer in the first place)? Or is this protection feature only
>beneficial to those who have other processes running that might keep
>the data source drive occupied long enough for the buffer to empty?

Overall, yes. You can read off hard drive more than fast enough to
feed a burner. But in the short term, there may be interruptions.
That's why there's a buffer.

If read speed was faster than write speed, and wasn't subject to
control, the buffer would need to keep increasing in size. This isn't
how it works. You can ask for data at any rate you want. But you
won't always get it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1061148932k@trad
> In article <612dnWWvqbPIKqKiXTWJjw@comcast.com> arnyk@hotpop.com
> writes:
>
>> Buffer underrun protection changed how CD burners respond to running
>> out of data to burn. The old technique involved aborting the job and
>> creating a coaster. The new technique allows the burn to be
>> transparently restarted when data again becomes available.
>
> That's what I thought it meant. But doesn't data get read off the hard
> drive faster than it can be written on the CD (the reason why there's
> a buffer in the first place)?

On a multi-tasking computer there are few if any guarantees.

>Or is this protection feature only
> beneficial to those who have other processes running that might keep
> the data source drive occupied long enough for the buffer to empty?

Look at it this way - CD burning prior to "Burn Proof" was among the very
few I/O tasks that would fail if the data was not available on a precise
timetable. Ironically, another such process is audio output.

> What am I saying? I'm running Windows. _I_ have processes running
> that I know nothing about, and every once in a while, even on the
> computer that's isolated from the Internet, I see the disk activity
> light go on for several seconds and things slow down. No fast find, no
> screen savers, no virus checkers, no automatic updates - I haven't a
> clue as to what's going on there, not even when examining the list of
> processes running.

Those would probably be delayed writes.

[Ben Bradley]

In rec.audio.pro, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:

>
>In article <612dnWWvqbPIKqKiXTWJjw@comcast.com> arnyk@hotpop.com writes:

>> ... { "burnproof" described )

>That's what I thought it meant. But doesn't data get read off the hard
>drive faster than it can be written on the CD (the reason why there's
>a buffer in the first place)?

If you're running MS-DOS, with no TSR's loaded, and you disable the
18.2-time-per-second hardware interrupt that drives DOS's real-time
clock, that MIGHT be true... (gee, do I really remember that stuff?)

>Or is this protection feature only
>beneficial to those who have other processes running that might keep
>the data source drive occupied long enough for the buffer to empty?

I think that's usually what it's used for. I'd think a modern OS
would let the burning application say it needs a certain amount of
hard disk bandwidth, bandwidth to the CDR, and CPU time, with
"absolute priority" over other apps. In NT/2K/XP you can set an app's
priority, but IIRC that's only for CPU time.

>What am I saying? I'm running Windows. _I_ have processes running
>that I know nothing about, and every once in a while, even on the
>comptuter that's isolated from the Internet, I see the disk activity
>light go on for several seconds and things slow down. No fast find, no
>screen savers, no virus checkers, no automatic updates - I haven't a
>clue as to what's going on there, not even when examining the list of
>processes running.

If you really want to learn what's going on, google for a few of
the task names you see, you'll find webpages that explain most known
tasks (hundreds of them), who wrote it, what it does and is for, and
if it's a virus/trojan.
But then you may ask, quite legitimately, why you should have to
learn all this stuff just to burn a CDR.

>--
>I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)

[Ben Bradley]

In rec.audio.pro, "Sugarite" <nobody@home.com> wrote:

> ...

>The only other issue is jitter, which I imagine is present on fast burns,
>but is nullified by the buffering process in all DVD players and computers.
>Only cheap portable cd players like discmans, ghetto blasters, and car
>stereos still don't buffer.

Where is the origin of "old/cheap CD players don't buffer"? How
many people believe that PCM audio is read straight off the disc and
clocked straight into a serial DAC, at the rate of some clock
reconstructed from the bitstream from the disc? Such a playback method
would not only have excessive jitter, but also measurable wow and
flutter created by the varying disc speed.
It's true that most players don't have the large ten-second or
40-second "no-skip" buffers as advertised on recent portables, but you
can't decode audio from a CD without a buffer, or actualy several
buffers from the looks of this description:
http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/CE/kuhn/cdaudio2/95x7.htm

FWIW, this very point has been discussed several times over the
years on RAP.

>IMO any CD player that doesn't eliminate jitter
>is not worth spending 24x more time to accommodate.

[Troy]

Yup 1X to 2X for mastering with HHB CDs

If you are doing music and using a newer budget CD burner then yes you may
have problems at any speed you do.If you are using a good burner then you
won't have these problems.

As for anything else you say .....I don't give a **** as there are alot of
people here who have agreed with what I said.All you have brought to this
thread is a reapeat of others opinions.

Get a thought of your own then try posting.

Ritek diamond CDs work great .As for the CMC CDs ....I said we have had good
luck with them.

I named every CD you know because these are some of the most used CDs.There
is nothing wrong with ritek CDs at all,we get very few duds.

> Do you have any
additional info?>


I have lots of other info.....but you think your so smart go find it
yourself.




<GagMe@aol.com> wrote in message
news:vanvjv4ds5u5qsmm33nd7n9cf1nvhtfshd@4ax.com...
> "Troy" <alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> >Are you saying I am full of ****?
>
> Well, "full" is obviously an exaggeration...
>
> You wrote:
> >No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
> >masters at 1X to 2 X.
>
> This statement conflicts with the experience of others (both users and
> burner manufacturers) who find that the lowest error rates are more
> burner-and-media specific than this simple formula. I'll concede that you
> speak from your own experience.
>
> You wrote:
> >Mistsui,Taiyo Yuden,Ritek (Diamond Silver),Prodisc (diamond silver).All
> >these CDs work good at 1X with no problems.We have also had good luck
with
> >some of the CMC CDs also.
>
> You've named every manufacturer I know. Ritek and CMC are well-known
> low-end manufacturers and indeed their undamaged yet unreadable disks have
> come my way. Never so for Mitsui and TY. Plextor recommends TY (and
> Verbatim!)
>
> You wrote
> >This is why you should buy Grade A duplicator quality CDs.
> >Don't buy the CRAP from the stores most of it is garbage.
>
> I did a Google search for "duplicator quality" cds and found nothing but
> claims for duplicator machines. The name itself implies to me an optimum
> cost-quality point rather than a superior quality disk. Do you have any
> additional info?
>

[Geoff Wood]

"Troy" <alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:DT7%a.735158$3C2.17109904@news3.calgary.shaw. ca...
> No Matter what kind of drive you are using slower is better.Always burn
> masters at 1X to 2 X on a good quality CD.I recomend no more than 8X to
12X
> for copies of the master.Higher speeds can cause to many errors and
playback
> can be affected on CD players.Faster is NOT better.We duplicate large runs
> of CDs at 8X only for the best quality.


Slower is not necessarily better either. Some drive and media , even older
and quality 'name' brands, burn with more errors at very slow speeds than
medium speeds.

I have good success duplicating at 8x too (on 12x burners in a stack of 7).

geoff

[Geoff Wood]

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1061122056k@trad...
>
> In article <wdw%a.743618$3C2.17274727@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>
alternate-root@shaw.ca writes:
>
> > This is why you should buy Grade A duplicator quality CDs.Don't buy the
CRAP
> > from the stores most of it is garbage.
>
> Do the millions of people who use that "garbage" for data backup,
> pictures, MP3 files, etc. have these problems? Clearly it isn't crap,
> it's just that audio people who try to save a little money (because
> everyone knows how cheap blank CDs are) are using the wrong tools for
> the job.
>

DATA has extra layers of error detection/correction than CD-A. However,
even with this I have had unreadable CD-ROMs that were 'very cheap' media .


geoff

[Linus]

Ok ...

Been reading all the posts ... thanks for the replys those of you who had
something to say ...

The thing is ...I have to find some kind of solution to this question. I
have to have some way of measuring the error on the discs I create I
suppose.

Which leads of course to the next question: Does anyone know where one
could find a PC app that would analyse and measure the error percentage on a
newly written disc?

Regards

Linus

Regards
"Linus" <support@tuerkmusic.co.za> wrote in message
news:bhidbl$5tk$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> Hello ...
>
> A potentially stupid question:
>
> Is it still important with the current crop of CDRW drives on the market
to
> write cds at single speed for the best audio quality?
>
> Or is the question pointless on account of CDRW drive quality being poor
> regardless of speed ...
>
> does anyone have the lowdown on this subject?
>
> Regards
>
> Linus
>
>
>
>

[Mike Rivers]

In article <3f40218c.18857046@newsgroups.bellsouth.net> ben_nospam_bradley@mindspring.com writes:

> But then you may ask, quite legitimately, why you should have to
> learn all this stuff just to burn a CDR.

I have asked, and I haven't learned - because my CDs work for some
apparently strange reason.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)

[Mike Rivers]

In article <bhpvmh$lim$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net> support@tuerkmusic.co.za writes:

> Which leads of course to the next question: Does anyone know where one
> could find a PC app that would analyse and measure the error percentage on a
> newly written disc?

From Plextor, but you have to use it with their drives. The good news
is that, unless you were expecting freeware, a new Plextor Premium
drive with the error analysis software costs just a bit over $100.
That shouldn't be too much for something that you want this badly. And
you get what's reported to be a good drive along with it.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)

[SD]

Laurence Payne wrote:

>>Would someone like to update the principle of "buffer under-run" for
>>me? This used to be the major cause of errors on a CD-R as I recall.
>>You'd start burning, you'd get the error message, and it would stop.
>>
>>So did the "protection" help prevent the problem that was causing the
>>error message, or did it simply allow the drive to go on working after
>>an error condition was detected?
>
>
> I believe it allowed the burn process to pause while it waited for
> more data.

I think it just slows down the write process so the reads can catch up..

[Scott Dorsey]

Steve King <steve@steveking.net> wrote:
>
>So, Brian, how can I determine an error rate for my burner/media combo? It
>hasn't happened in a while, but a year or so ago I was getting CDs rejected
>by a local Chicago duplicator, be cause they "contained too many errors". I
>was using a Plextor SCSI burner, Taiyo Yuden blanks, burning at several
>different speeds... from 4X to 12X, the fastest that old burner would go.
>Finally, the problem got solved, when the duplicating house burned my
>regular order of 250 CDs on an older duplication setup, where they ran fine.
>
>How can I know before I send off a CD to a duplicator whether there are
>errors... or how many, or?????
>
>And, no a Google search did not find an answer.

It should have.


--cut here--


From geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam Thu Apr 12 09:50:10 EDT 2001
Article: 619268 of rec.audio.pro
Path: news.panix.com!panix!newsxfer.eecs.umich.edu!logbr idge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: "Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam>
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: Are All CD-Rs The Same?
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:04:02 +1200
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <td9okp8dnls935@news.supernews.com>
Reply-To: "Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam>
References: <20010411112041.08861.00003391@ng-mo1.aol.com> <9b1tk5$b5r$1@panix2.panix.com> <794B6.2441$cb6.238968@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink .net> <td9jpvln2pv464@corp.supernews.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com
Lines: 26
Xref: news.panix.com rec.audio.pro:619268

Try CD-R Diagnostic from www.cdrom-prod.com

geoff

"Brad Blackwood" <bblackwood@ardentstudios.com> wrote in message
news:td9jpvln2pv464@corp.supernews.com...
> "Steve Cawley" <neodym@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:794B6.2441$cb6.238968@newsread2.prod.itd.eart hlink.net...
> > Is there a software utility that reports error rates? I use CD
Architect
> on
> > my PC to record CDs, and I've never been able to find an error log. The
> > only error display I ever get coincides with a new coaster acquisition.
>
> Nope - you need a Clover or Stagetech (hardware) device. Software can't do
> it.
> --------------------------
> Brad Blackwood
> Mastering Engineer
> Ardent Studios
> www.ardentstudios.com
>
>
>




From James.R.Perrett@soc.soton.ac.uk Thu Apr 12 09:55:29 EDT 2001
Article: 619502 of rec.audio.pro
Message-ID: <3AD5945A.4698BC49@soc.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:41:14 +0100
From: James Perrett <James.R.Perrett@soc.soton.ac.uk>
Organization: SOC
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: Are All CD-Rs The Same?
References: <20010411112041.08861.00003391@ng-mo1.aol.com> <9b1tk5$b5r$1@panix2.panix.com> <794B6.2441$cb6.238968@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink .net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.166.196.53
X-Trace: 12 Apr 2001 12:39:31 GMT, 139.166.196.53
Lines: 38
Path: news.panix.com!panix!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsfeed.utk.edu!washdc3-snf1!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!nycmny1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news1.ebone.net!news.e bone.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!nntp.n ews.xara.net!xara.net!gxn.net!server6.netnews.ja
.net!server4.netnews.ja.net!server2.netnews.ja.net !news.nwl.ac.uk!139.166.196.53
Xref: news.panix.com rec.audio.pro:619502

Steve Cawley wrote:
>
> Is there a software utility that reports error rates? I use CD Architect on
> my PC to record CDs, and I've never been able to find an error log. The
> only error display I ever get coincides with a new coaster acquisition.
>
> Steve Cawley
>

I don't know of any software that can give true BLER readings but
CDSpeed, in conjunction with a suitable CDROM, like a Plextor PX40, can
give you a count of C2 (or worse) errors.

I have seen Plextor drives used in CD checking equipment so I would
guess that they can be modified to give more information.

I also understand that the newer Plextor CD Writers are better at giving
error information than their older CD Writers. The PX1610 can give C2
error information but the 8432 cannot (according to CDSpeed).

You should also have a utility like CDInfo that tells you who really
makes the discs that you are using. Established media manufacturers like
BASF, Sony, Quantegy and Imation all buy in their disks from various
sources and some of them have been known to switch from reputable
manufacturers to cheaper, lower quality manufacturers.

Cheers.

James.

--
************************************************** ********************
* James Perrett Ocean Engineering Division *
* Southampton Oceanography Centre, *
* Empress Dock, Southampton SO14 3ZH, U.K. *
* Phone +44 (0)23 8059 6141, Fax +44 (0)23 8059 6149 *
* e-mail jrp @ soc . soton . ac . uk http://www.soc.soton.ac.uk/ *
************************************************** ********************


From steveaudio@earthlink.net Thu Apr 12 10:02:43 EDT 2001
Article: 619436 of rec.audio.pro
Path: news.panix.com!panix!howland.erols.net!feed2.news. rcn.net!rcn!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earth link.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsre ad1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3AD5462F.F779CA24@earthlink.net>
From: Stephen Anderson <steveaudio@earthlink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: Are All CD-Rs The Same?
References: <20010411112041.08861.00003391@ng-mo1.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 49
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 06:08:53 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.178.159.68
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 987055733 209.178.159.68 (Wed, 11 Apr 2001 23:08:53 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 23:08:53 PDT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
X-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 23:07:37 PDT (newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net)
Xref: news.panix.com rec.audio.pro:619436

While I was on staff at Capitol Studios, we did extensive testing and analysis of
CD-R from virtually every manufacturer, including those made from Sonic Solutions
onto the venerable Sony CDW-900, those made on outboard cutters like Plextor
units reading Toast and Jam files, and also parts made in our mass duplicators.
Testing was done not only by listening, but also by analyzing in our Clover CD
analyzer.

Several things became apparant:
1) CDR quality and consistancy was a moving target. TDKs, Mitsuis, whatever,
varied from month to month, from purchase to purchase. And color didn't always
matter. One month Blues from TDK worked well, next month it was golds from
Maxell. However, what didn;t change was that name brands seemed to always test
better than cheapie no-names.

2) The biggest problem seemed to be consistency and accuracy of the embedded
control track. If the cutter or the reader "loses it's place," by losing the
control track, at best you get drop outs and snats, at worst it becomes a
frisbee. It would make a certain sense that big-time manufacturers would have
"hopefully" more precise manu\facturing and QC equipment, but I don't know, that
may just be a fantasy.

I do know that after analyzing MANY CDRs, and seeing the pretty dismal results
displayed by the Clover, I wouldn't ever depend on CD as either a medium to
master from, or for archiving. Make them to play, to sell, to hand out as refs,
but not for mastering or manufacturing.

Glenn Meadows, of Masterphonics, has done thousands of hours of really great
research into CDR technology, and it's valuable info which he continues to pass
on to us. Go to http://www.digido.com/ and click on the link to Glenn meadow's
CDR tests.

CJMorgan59 wrote:

> Are all recordable CDs the same?
> If so, why not just buy the most economical brand?
> If not, what does one look for, particularly if quality and longivity are the
> concerns?
> If quality and longivity are important to you, what brand/make do you buy?
>
> Just one areas where I don't want to penny-pinch,
> Thanks In Advance,
> CJ

--
Stephen Anderson
SteveAudio@earthlink.net
SteveAudio@aol.com




From jetrn@nb.net Wed Aug 1 22:06:38 EDT 2001
Article: 659424 of rec.audio.pro
Path: news.panix.com!panix!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news.maxwell.syr. edu!newsfeed.slurp.net!not-for-mail
From: pH <high@cidity.level>
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: Fix a CDR with no TOC but 50mins of audio?
Reply-To: jetrn@nb.net
Message-ID: <123hmt08a1s8clmhmji90jbv6th3iv4f2j@4ax.com>
References: <9k9i02$14f0$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
X-No-Archive: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 50
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 20:18:40 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.161.75.45
X-Trace: newsfeed.slurp.net 996711267 209.161.75.45 (Wed, 01 Aug 2001 19:14:27 CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 19:14:27 CDT
Xref: news.panix.com rec.audio.pro:659424

If all else fails, there's a program called CD-R Diagnostic, that
might be worth a try. Have a look here:

http://www.cdrom-prod.com

I think the demo will at least show you whether or not you have
recoverable (from the program's perspective) data. If so, then
you should be able (with the full version, that is -- $50) to extract
the disc's contents to your HD. I'm not sure of the particulars, here,
but in the event that what gets extracted is "raw" data, you can
probably open it as such in an editor (Forge, Wavelab,...), save it
as a .wav, then burn a new disc with your mastering software.

Jeff

http://www.nb.net/~jetrn/home.html


On 1 Aug 2001 18:32:34 GMT, louie@u.washington.edu (G. Louie) wrote:

>Here is a poser for you. I was given a CDR, recorded on a Sony CDRW33 CDR
>recorder. It reads 0 tracks, 00 secs and of course, does not play, even
>though the user swears it was started (and left unattended) recording for
>about 50 minutes.
>
>Careful examination does reveal the characteristic burn diameter
>corresponding to the time of the recording (it's a Quantegy gold and much
>harder to see than blue CDRs). The user can provide no information about
>whether the recorder was properly stopped to allow a proper temporary TOC,
>and certainly nothing about finalizing. Examining the behavior of the
>recorder, I find that it is possible to record for a length of time, then
>cut the power, and because it hasn't been able to write a temporary TOC,
>behaves as above. The recorder does not allow other odd actions such as
>ejecting during a TOC write. In addition, virgin discs inserted into the
>Sony go through an OPC (optical laser power calibration), and this disc
>does not, as if it has already been through it.
>
>Apparently I have a disc with no TOC, but 50 minutes of audio. Can anyone
>think of a way to recover the audio? Unfortunately, whenever inserted into
>a CD player or computer CD drive, it always reads as an audio CD with a
>TOC of 0 tracks and 00 secs.
>
>The only thing I can think of is to create a disc image similar to this
>program (I use JAM on the Mac), attempt to burn this onto my problem disc,
>and cut the power after the new TOC has been written, and before too much
>of the audio has been double written. Then pray that it will fool a player
>enough to go. I don't care if a little of the start is mangled, or if the
>leadout is wrong, I'll just transfer to the workstation and edit it,
>whether I can play it in realtime, or extract it.



From jetrn@earthlink.net Mon Oct 21 11:37:04 EDT 2002
Article: 836267 of rec.audio.pro
Path: reader1.panix.com!panix!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!ene ws1
From: pH <high@cidity.level>
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: CD-R testing programs?
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 23:51:44 -0400
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <crt6ruk1llpuq4lgacoo3penlvs5anfqbi@4ax.com>
References: <3DB2E071.9C552644@helsinki.fi>
Reply-To: jetrn@earthlink.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-045.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
X-No-Archive: yes
Xref: panix rec.audio.pro:836267

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 19:57:21 +0300, PenttiL <pentti.leppaaho@helsinki.fi> wrote:

>
>Someone will have some experience about the CD-R testing programs to
>PC? The purpose is to test audio-CD-R -disc after the burning.
>Especially possible errors of the CD-R should have to analyze and find
>them after burn the master -CD-R before copy from it several CD-R
>-copies.
>
>-prices?
>-how easy to use?
>-possible some more information on internet, where ?

Have a look at:

http://www.cdromprod.com

Their CD-R Detective is about the best available at the
consumer level, but look around here, as well:

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de

Lastly, for more than you ever wanted to know about all things
CD-R:

http://www.mscience.com

Good luck!
Jeff

http://www.jefftturner.com




--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Jonas Eckerman]

> Do the millions of people who use that "garbage" for data backup,
> pictures, MP3 files, etc. have these problems?

There's some differences you between data and audio discs.

* If the CD reader looses track of what it's doing, or has to re-read
something, when reading a data disc all that happens is that it takes
longer to read the data. The disc can stop spinning and start up again with
no bad result. If a CD player playing an audio disc has to reread something
(and eventual buffers runs out), it simply won't sound good. And if it
actually has to stop the audio disc and get it up to speed again, it'd be
even worse. We don't wont music to play that way.

* Data discs have more error correction (wich is also more enforced). This
makes sense for lot of consumer use. One single bad bit on a data disc
might make the data completely useless, while an audio CD with a tick
(destroing several bits) should still be playable on a CD player without
too much artifacts (and seeing that lots of people leave ther music CDs
around without covers (a friend who lived here did that all the time even
though we also lived with two cats and their claws)) that makes a lot of
sense.

When using CD-Rs as audio masters, or for selling to listeners, things
become quite different. Suddenly we want every single bit on the audio disc
to be exactly what it should be, and we want a disc that CD players can
play without ever loosing track.


/Jonas

[Brian]

In article <W2R%a.170980$YN5.113717@sccrnsc01>, Steve King
<steve@steveking.net> wrote:

> So, Brian, how can I determine an error rate for my burner/media combo?

In addition to the other replies, a simple utility can be found here:
http://www.cdspeed2000.com/go.php3?link=cdspeed.html

I haven't used this myself (since I have a Mac here in the studio) but
it doesn't look like the data returned is extremely thorough; however,
if your drive supports these tests it should certainly allow you to
determine the best brand and speed, even if it doesn't give you the
actual BLER or other error information specifically.

Brian

[ryanm]

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1061148932k@trad...
>
> What am I saying? I'm running Windows. _I_ have processes running
> that I know nothing about, and every once in a while, even on the
> comptuter that's isolated from the Internet, I see the disk activity
> light go on for several seconds and things slow down. No fast find, no
> screen savers, no virus checkers, no automatic updates - I haven't a
> clue as to what's going on there, not even when examining the list of
> processes running.
>
Generally it's a defrag or other cleanup process, which are set up to
run during periods of inactivity. During periods of inactivity, during boot
up, and during shut down are when Windows does it's cleanup and maintenance
(make backups of your registry, check non-system processes to see if they
should still be running, etc), so that stuff is ok. It's when you see your
network card light flickering when you're not online that you should worry.

ryanm

[J. Joyce]

I think there are several issues here, all related.
First of all, there are many good programs for checking error rates;
some are simple, some are not.
For an easy check of a burned sample, try exact audio copy (EAC),
which is free, no less. There is an option to test the CD quality
which is very good. You can also play around with making offset
matched copies and there is a sophisticated extraction system tied
into the offset copy process.
For other info, check out www.cdrinfo.com. They test hardware and
media and show error rates with all different types of media and
burners. There are links to the software they use. Turn on the popup
blocker before you go.
As far as what media to use, you can buy two brand name cakeboxes at
the same store on the same day and get two types of media, because the
vendors are making rapid decisions based on price and availability.
The media LOOK the same, but the info tools show they are not the same
and have different characteristics. Even reliable sources like Mitsui
change their formulations.
The net result is that you have test each batch if you care about
errors

As far as "Will it play in my clients CD player", my experience is
that there is not a precise correlation between the error rates and
the universality of the media. Indeed, evidence suggests that picky
players will read media that is burned at one speed rather than
another. My search for a brand that will play in EVERYONE's CD player
has been unsuccessful so far, in part because there are a lot of
really old CD players out there that have problems. It is not
unreasonable to suppose that the common use of 80 minute CDs is
toasting the installed base as well.

In general, it would seem that some of the silver dyes are more
problematic on older players due to reflectivity issues,
counterbalanced by the fact that the mitsui's (the silver ones) are in
general higher quality. Reflectivity plays a part in the burner as
well. In addition, certain coatings do not do well under the laser and
that can case a weak burn.

The yamaha system, which is basically reading glasses for CD players,
improves the sound on lousy players but not on really good players.
This seems good until you realize that the lousy players sound lousy
anyway. My testing so far shows that a yamaha burned CD has a slightly
better chance of being read by a picky player. However, I would not
use it for mastering, as i have no data for that. The yamaha system
creates larger pits, but CDs of an odd size. To send in a 74 minute
master, you would have to use an 80 minute CD or overburn,
unacceptable for a mastering CD. For shorter CDs, such as demos, which
have to play in a wide variety of machines, the yamaha system is a
good choice. However, Lite-ons and other brands have better error
rates than yamahas. The yamahas are not bad, but they are not the
best. Some of the newer drives have flawless C2 error correction.

The suggestion to turn off the buffer underrun software is a good one,
but obscures the fact that there are many different implementations
for different drives, as well as different generations of the same
systems. Basically, you are looking at gapping and testing.
The testing systems run a little routine at startup to set the speed.
This should be disabled as you may get a different speed than you
requested, and, in addition, you may move out of a burning bracket,
for example for CLV to partial CLV.

I would definitely burn at CLV myself, but, again, it depends on the
drive.

Gapping is similar to cueing on a record player in most
implementations. The laser waits for more data, ergo, no underrun.
When it starts up agin, there is what I would call a burble when the
needle drops Usually, there is a blinking light on the burner to show
that it is doing its thing. There are different systems that modulate
the speed, and so on, producing different gaps
I would like to see someone point to it as it flies by :) The gap on
older sysyems was much larger. The gap now is so small that it may be
concsidered "within spec". Oddly enough, the size of the gap does not
tell the whole story. Certain Aopen drives tested very well but
nonetheless produced unreliable burns.

Would I turn it off anyway? Yes. You don't need it at even 24x unless
you have a slow buss, and in that case you will have problems anyway.
Also, the gaps created are smaller than many random defects.
Something to ponder.
I would agree that 1x is often a poor choice. 2x is often bad as well.
However, this has to do with Error rates, not playability, and so one
can get conflicting results from the field.
Testing your drive is easy, or, easier still, buy one that has been
tested. I usually burn critical material between 8-16x but have done
4x on occasion, and 24x for a picky reader once in a while.
I always use CLV, and will use yamaha's system for shorter material.

Another thing to consider: a yamah 16x scsi burner. Very reliable for
certain applications, nothing to turn off. And it is scsi.
I myself use liteon and yamaha. I like the liteons because I can burn
three CDs at once at 40x using three drives, on the fly.
But critical recordings, one drive, 8-16x.

I agree with the poster (Mike?) who says we need special media.
This is true, and one would pay a stiff premium, but it is all so
cheap....


Here are some suggestions:
Never use 80 minute CDs for critical burns
Always burn at CLV, no lower than 4x, however, if 1x or 2x has always
worked for you, why change? Check the error rates, howver.
Buy a burner that has a good error rating and has good evidence from
the field--check the rating in cdrinfo and then cross that with
professional opinions in this forum.
Use slower rated disks of high quality for critical work--can be
bought for a good price right after a speed hike.
Use archival rated material for storage--it makes a difference.
Get the latest firmware for your burner--generally the update is for
the media issues.
Run the CD through EAC to get a track quality rating before you send
it. Try to get 98% to 100% on their scale, and 100% if you can.
Always burn from a hardisk image. If you are burning on the fly.
Isolate the drives so they do not vibrate near each other and create
harmonic instability.