IDM Mailing Archive

(apologies for cross-posting) I recently acquired a release by Rod Modell which it transpires is available in two formats: CD and CDr. I discovered (after acquisition) that I actually have the latter <http://www.discogs.com/release/451996> Now, I'm not very well up on the technicalities of this, so I was wondering if anyone can tell me what the difference in sound quality is between material released on CDr as opposed to that on CD. I notice that, for example, u-cover has taken to issuing a lot of stuff on CDr, so, yeah, what's the deal? alan ---------------------- Alan Lockett (Senior Language Co-ordinator - EFL) Language Centre, University of Bristol, 30-32 Tyndall's Park Road, Bristol, BS8 1PY, UK tel: +44 (0)117 3310914 e-mail: Alan.R.Lockett@bristol.ac.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

There is no difference in audio quality between a replicated CD and a dulicated CDr. Both are identical in the fact that they contatin uncompressed 16-bit digital audio with a resolution of 44.1khz. On 2/7/06, Alan Lockett <Alan.R.Lockett@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:

quoted 26 lines (apologies for cross-posting)

> (apologies for cross-posting) > > I recently acquired a release by Rod Modell which it transpires is > available in two formats: CD and CDr. > I discovered (after acquisition) that I actually have the latter > <http://www.discogs.com/release/451996> > > Now, I'm not very well up on the technicalities of this, so I was wondering > if anyone can tell me what the difference in sound quality is between > material released on CDr as opposed to that on CD. I notice that, for > example, u-cover has taken to issuing a lot of stuff on CDr, so, yeah, > what's the deal? > > alan > > ---------------------- > Alan Lockett (Senior Language Co-ordinator - EFL) > Language Centre, University of Bristol, > 30-32 Tyndall's Park Road, Bristol, BS8 1PY, UK > tel: +44 (0)117 3310914 e-mail: Alan.R.Lockett@bristol.ac.uk > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > >

-- www.experimedia.net --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

I guess there is a slight difference. Take a look here: http://www.mrichter.com/cdr/primer/losses.htm Walkman www.sutemos.net

quoted 43 lines There is no difference in audio quality between a replicated CD and a

> There is no difference in audio quality between a replicated CD and a > dulicated CDr. Both are identical in the fact that they contatin > uncompressed 16-bit digital audio with a resolution of 44.1khz. > > > On 2/7/06, Alan Lockett <Alan.R.Lockett@bristol.ac.uk> wrote: >> (apologies for cross-posting) >> >> I recently acquired a release by Rod Modell which it transpires is >> available in two formats: CD and CDr. >> I discovered (after acquisition) that I actually have the latter >> <http://www.discogs.com/release/451996> >> >> Now, I'm not very well up on the technicalities of this, so I was >> wondering >> if anyone can tell me what the difference in sound quality is between >> material released on CDr as opposed to that on CD. I notice that, for >> example, u-cover has taken to issuing a lot of stuff on CDr, so, yeah, >> what's the deal? >> >> alan >> >> ---------------------- >> Alan Lockett (Senior Language Co-ordinator - EFL) >> Language Centre, University of Bristol, >> 30-32 Tyndall's Park Road, Bristol, BS8 1PY, UK >> tel: +44 (0)117 3310914 e-mail: Alan.R.Lockett@bristol.ac.uk >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >> >> > > > -- > www.experimedia.net > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > >

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

CD-R have a smaller lifetime, than pressed media. http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/12933

quoted 8 lines <dhtmled3://news/submit>an expert physicist Kurt Gerecke that works

> <dhtmled3://news/submit>an expert physicist Kurt Gerecke that works > for IBM Deutschland has warned users not to use CD-R's for long term > backups. His advice is that if you don’t want to keep backing up the > same discs every few years use magnetic tape backup instead. Kurt went > on to say that unlike pressed CD’s, burnt CD-R’s lifetime is much > shorter with lifetime ranging from just 2 to 5 years depending on the > quality of the disc. Of course he recommended that to extend the discs > life you should keep it in a cool dark place.

Walkman wrote:

quoted 60 lines I guess there is a slight difference.

> I guess there is a slight difference. > Take a look here: > http://www.mrichter.com/cdr/primer/losses.htm > > Walkman > www.sutemos.net > > >> There is no difference in audio quality between a replicated CD and a >> dulicated CDr. Both are identical in the fact that they contatin >> uncompressed 16-bit digital audio with a resolution of 44.1khz. >> >> >> On 2/7/06, Alan Lockett <Alan.R.Lockett@bristol.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>> (apologies for cross-posting) >>> >>> I recently acquired a release by Rod Modell which it transpires is >>> available in two formats: CD and CDr. >>> I discovered (after acquisition) that I actually have the latter >>> <http://www.discogs.com/release/451996> >>> >>> Now, I'm not very well up on the technicalities of this, so I was >>> wondering >>> if anyone can tell me what the difference in sound quality is between >>> material released on CDr as opposed to that on CD. I notice that, for >>> example, u-cover has taken to issuing a lot of stuff on CDr, so, yeah, >>> what's the deal? >>> >>> alan >>> >>> ---------------------- >>> Alan Lockett (Senior Language Co-ordinator - EFL) >>> Language Centre, University of Bristol, >>> 30-32 Tyndall's Park Road, Bristol, BS8 1PY, UK >>> tel: +44 (0)117 3310914 e-mail: Alan.R.Lockett@bristol.ac.uk >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> www.experimedia.net >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >> >> >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > >

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

> Hmnnnn ... and then there's always the burn speed issue... that's a really useful article, thanks neil. [nick] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Walkman" <walkman@sutemos.net> Reply-To: walkman@sutemos.net Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:52:28 +0200 (EET)

quoted 3 lines I guess there is a slight difference.

>I guess there is a slight difference. >Take a look here: >http://www.mrichter.com/cdr/primer/losses.htm

yes, i had heard something like that. it was noticeable when i was listening to a mastered CDR of our album, and then the pressed CDs arrived and in the same player/headphones it sounded louder and better. not by a lot, but it was noticeable. this seems like an issue partially with the D/A converters or something. in other words, as that site says, and the last person who posted stated, the quality of the digital audio on the disc itself is identical. what's different is the signal as it translates to analog while listening. everything would be fine if we didn't have to use our damn ears! i think you can keep the sound quality as close as possible by burning audio discs at 2x (which is what mastering engineers burn our premaaster discs at). it's my understanding this lowers the error correction necessary when discs are burned at faster rates and translates to the ear as better sound. so yeah, it's nice to download your supposedly great-sounding mp3s and throw them on a CDR (with or without conversion to AIFF/WAV), but it still doesn't sound quite as full as a manufactured CD. you could say phillips has a vested interest in saying this, but i hear a difference. d. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

--On 07 February 2006 08:38 -0800 chthonic <chthonic@chthonicstreams.com> wrote:

quoted 1 line everything would be fine if we didn't have to use our damn ears!

> everything would be fine if we didn't have to use our damn ears!

Another flaw in the 'Intelligent Design' argument ;-) alan ---------------------- Alan Lockett (Senior Language Co-ordinator - EFL) Language Centre, University of Bristol, 30-32 Tyndall's Park Road, Bristol, BS8 1PY, UK tel: +44 (0)117 3310914 e-mail: Alan.R.Lockett@bristol.ac.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

take a cd-r, and rip an image of the entire disc then, burn the image to a cd-r then, rip an image of the cd-r and do a diff on the two files, if they are the same, then cd-r is exactly the same as regular cd the only problems: damaged or shady hardware/damaged discs On 2/7/06, Alan Lockett <Alan.R.Lockett@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:

quoted 22 lines --On 07 February 2006 08:38 -0800 chthonic <chthonic@chthonicstreams.com >

> > > --On 07 February 2006 08:38 -0800 chthonic <chthonic@chthonicstreams.com > > wrote: > > > everything would be fine if we didn't have to use our damn ears! > > Another flaw in the 'Intelligent Design' argument ;-) > > alan > > ---------------------- > Alan Lockett (Senior Language Co-ordinator - EFL) > Language Centre, University of Bristol, > 30-32 Tyndall's Park Road, Bristol, BS8 1PY, UK > tel: +44 (0)117 3310914 e-mail: Alan.R.Lockett@bristol.ac.uk > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > >

CD-rs do not have a coating over the data, so they naturally have a shorter lifespan and will not take abuse without scratching the data layer. That said, I have cdrs which were burned 10 years ago and play fine. I'm not saying everyone will get the same mileage - but I am saying I've been burning for a long time and have yet to see ANY disc deterioration. jeff -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: Carlo Caputo <zed@9hells.org>

quoted 10 lines CD-R have a smaller lifetime, than pressed media.

> CD-R have a smaller lifetime, than pressed media. > > http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/12933 > > <dhtmled3://news/submit>an expert physicist Kurt Gerecke that works > > for IBM Deutschland has warned users not to use CD-R's for long term > > backups. His advice is that if you don?t want to keep backing up the > > same discs every few years use magnetic tape backup instead. Kurt went > > on to say that unlike pressed CD?s, burnt CD-R?s lifetime is much > > shorter with lifetime ranging from just 2 to 5 years depending on the > > quality of the disc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

While doing this, it can be a good idea using Exact Audio Copy: "In secure mode, this program reads every audio sector at least twice. That is one reason why the program is so slow. But by using this technique non-identical sectors are detected. If an error occurs (read or sync error), the program keeps on reading this sector, until eight of 16 retries are identical, but at maximum one, three or five times (according to the error recovery quality) these 16 retries are read. So, in the worst case, bad sectors are read up to 82 times! But this will help the program to obtain best result by comparing all of the retries. If it is not sure that the stream is correct (at least it can be said at approx. 99.5%) the program will tell the user where the (possible) read error occurred. The program also tries to adjust the jitter artefacts that occur on the first block of a track, so that each extraction should be exactly the same." http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/ Here is some more information how to rip in good quality, also mp3-encoding: http://www.ubernet.org/?p=UberStandard -----Original Message----- From: Bryce Berny [mailto:bryce.berny@gmail.com] Sent: den 8 februari 2006 16:45 To: Alan Lockett Cc: chthonic@chthonicstreams.com; idm@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: [idm] CDr vs. CD take a cd-r, and rip an image of the entire disc then, burn the image to a cd-r then, rip an image of the cd-r and do a diff on the two files, if they are the same, then cd-r is exactly the same as regular cd the only problems: damaged or shady hardware/damaged discs On 2/7/06, Alan Lockett <Alan.R.Lockett@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:

quoted 3 lines --On 07 February 2006 08:38 -0800 chthonic

> > > --On 07 February 2006 08:38 -0800 chthonic

<chthonic@chthonicstreams.com >

quoted 19 lines wrote:

> wrote: > > > everything would be fine if we didn't have to use our damn ears! > > Another flaw in the 'Intelligent Design' argument ;-) > > alan > > ---------------------- > Alan Lockett (Senior Language Co-ordinator - EFL) > Language Centre, University of Bristol, > 30-32 Tyndall's Park Road, Bristol, BS8 1PY, UK > tel: +44 (0)117 3310914 e-mail: Alan.R.Lockett@bristol.ac.uk > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > >

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

If you have discs burned 10 years ago and haven't seen any deterioration you're extremely lucky. I have (had) quite a few dating to just mid 1998 and among those are many that have been "bronzed"... http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/9771 ...as well as a few whose labels became torn or flaked off, rendering them unreadable. And that's while storing discs in a cool, dark, dry place, upright, and without any drops, dings, etc. To coin a phrase "download once, burn twice." anti_stunna --- therealmxyzptlk@comcast.net wrote: CD-rs do not have a coating over the data, so they naturally have a shorter lifespan and will not take abuse without scratching the data layer. That said, I have cdrs which were burned 10 years ago and play fine. I'm not saying everyone will get the same mileage - but I am saying I've been burning for a long time and have yet to see ANY disc deterioration. jeff __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org