IDM Mailing Archive

I heard that music CDR's aren't that great because most of the time they skip-sometimes they don't... very inconsistent... extremely sensative, etc. I heard this is only with the computer CDR's, not with the home audio CDR's. (which use totally different techniques to achieve the same thing.) but this is just what I hear..... true? In a message dated 8/26/97 6:44:30 AM, kymtosh@student.adelaide.edu.au wrote:

quoted 13 lines Have been thinking about this for a while .. since I have easy axs

> > Have been thinking about this for a while .. since I have easy axs > to a cd-burner and many gigs of HD space , I would be happy to > put together a "Threads" style cd .. I guess I'd need submissions > on DAT , + then a voting system ala Mr.Parry's ... of course it > would be considerably smaller in scale (considering I'm just > using CDR's) . > > Anyway , just thought I'd do an interest test , because even if > I do get enough interest , I'll have to wait a couple of months > before I have time .. > > Tim.

On Tue, 26 Aug 1997 PUCKERED1@aol.com wrote:

quoted 5 lines I heard that music CDR's aren't that great because most of the time they

> I heard that music CDR's aren't that great because most of the time they > skip-sometimes they don't... very inconsistent... extremely sensative, etc. > I heard this is only with the computer CDR's, not with the home audio CDR's. > (which use totally different techniques to achieve the same thing.) > but this is just what I hear..... true?

I have a CDR of a certain to-remain-unnamed rarity (thanks Gil) that was burned using a marantz CD recorder onto a KAO brand CDR disc. This was a year ago and I have not had any trouble with the recording at all. I am very happy with it... ;) I do know, however that the burner I was using was *very* picky about the brand of CDR disc it would work with... hess

PUCKERED1@aol.com writes:

quoted 5 lines I heard that music CDR's aren't that great because most of the time they

> I heard that music CDR's aren't that great because most of the time they > skip-sometimes they don't... very inconsistent... extremely sensative, etc. > I heard this is only with the computer CDR's, not with the home audio CDR's. > (which use totally different techniques to achieve the same thing.) > but this is just what I hear..... true?

my experience, having burned several dozen audio CDRs, is that they play fine in every cd player i've ever tried them in, from portables, to boom boxes, to home units, to my car. the only time i've ever had any problem with any disc was when the (early, primitive) JVC software screwed up the TOC on one of them. my car CD player would always skip track 12. weird. it played fine on every other player though. i think CDR technology, today, is very reliable and extremely cost-effective. -- Jon Drukman jsd@gamespot.com SpotMedia Communications ...I was an infinitely hot and dense dot...

I've also burned a few dozen audio CDs and all of them play fine in various cd players. I've had the opportunity to use about ten or twelve cd players for them, as well, so it's a big sample group. I agree with Jon on this one...the technology has been out long enough to have reached a stable and inexpensive plateau. ---brian -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Je suis mon dieu. gause@altagroup.com ---------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Brian Gause wrote:

quoted 6 lines I've also burned a few dozen audio CDs and all of them play fine in various cd

> I've also burned a few dozen audio CDs and all of them play fine in various cd > players. I've had the opportunity to use about ten or twelve cd players for > them, as well, so it's a big sample group. > > I agree with Jon on this one...the technology has been out long enough to have > reached a stable and inexpensive plateau.

I was damn surprised to find out that multi-session CD-ROM burners only cost $800, but also a bit (unpleasantly) surprised at the high cost of the cd-r's. still damn, it's nice that the machines are so cheap :) -- __ __\ \ Game Program ( R G / /_\ \ .gampggrmx.1x26s..1<,www.freq-div.home.ml.org<,, \_____/ >> buh@clark.net >> < > .. >> .<>> >> >

Hillie writes:

quoted 3 lines I was damn surprised to find out that multi-session CD-ROM burners only

> I was damn surprised to find out that multi-session CD-ROM burners only > cost $800, but also a bit (unpleasantly) surprised at the high cost of the > cd-r's. still damn, it's nice that the machines are so cheap :)

$800 is a TERRIBLE deal. (we are talking US dollars here, right?) a good CD-r burner can be had for around $300. ALL of the current production models support multi-session. For those just tuning in, multi-session is the ability to burn a little bit, then take the disc out, use it, and put it back in at a later date and add more. Each additional burn cycle is a "session". On my mac, each session shows up as a separate volume icon on the desktop when I insert the CD. In ancient times (ie: a few years ago), multi-session used to waste 20-30 MB of disk space for each session. Most modern drives use a feature called "packet writing", which wastes very little space. Blanks are under $3. I would not pay more than $2.75 for a blank CD. It just occured to me that maybe Hillie was talking about REWRITABLE CD drives, in which case, the drives are around $500-$600 but the media is still pretty expensive (best price i've found is $18). CD-RW discs can only be read in CD-RW players. However, these drives can also burn the regular one-shot CD-Rs, so they're not a bad idea if you have the extra cash. NP: Speedy J - Public Energy No 1 -- Jon Drukman jsd@gamespot.com SpotMedia Communications ...I was an infinitely hot and dense dot...