| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Fact or Myth? Black CDs
I recently read a report claiming that the quality of sound on a cd
could be vastly improved by rerecording the cd onto a black color cd blank. The thesis, as I understood it, was that the black color is easier for the laser to read than standard white or silver colors. The report involved extensive comparison testing. Unfortunately, I've lost the link to the report. Has anyone had any experience with this or tested the proposition? Second question, anybody have any experience with the Marantz CDR 300 portable cd recorder? I'm considering purchasing to replace my mini-disc, which I use at rehearsals. I've heard the Marantz limiter may reduce the sound quality noticeably. Mini-discs compress too much it seems, but I like the idea of having a limiter if it really works. Thanks for any help you can give. TCanyon3 |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"tcanyon3" wrote in message
om I recently read a report claiming that the quality of sound on a cd could be vastly improved by rerecording the cd onto a black color cd blank. The thesis, as I understood it, was that the black color is easier for the laser to read than standard white or silver colors. Some friends of mine have reported that black blanks produce valid digital information just like the regular clear/silver kind. Fari enough. Your challenge is to explain how one improves on the bit-perfect performance we already obtain from clear/sliver or clear/gold blanks. The report involved extensive comparison testing. Unfortunately, I've lost the link to the report. It has to be science fiction because extensive comparison testing shows that we already obtain the bit-perfect performance from clear/sliver or clear/gold blanks. Has anyone had any experience with this or tested the proposition? The propopsition that is already thoroughly tested is that clear/sliver or clear/gold blanks already provide bit-perfect performance. Second question, anybody have any experience with the Marantz CDR 300 portable cd recorder? I'm considering purchasing to replace my mini-disc, which I use at rehearsals. I've heard the Marantz limiter may reduce the sound quality noticeably. Mini-discs compress too much it seems, but I like the idea of having a limiter if it really works. Portable CD recorders seem like terribly old-fashioned approaches given that we already have portable hard-drive based recorders. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
tcanyon3 wrote:
I recently read a report claiming that the quality of sound on a cd could be vastly improved by rerecording the cd onto a black color cd blank. The thesis, as I understood it, was that the black color is easier for the laser to read than standard white or silver colors. The laser doesn't read that anyway. What is black is only the plastic substrate. And it's only black at visible light wavelengths anyway; it is transparent to infrared, which is all the player cares about. The report involved extensive comparison testing. Unfortunately, I've lost the link to the report. If you find Fermat's theorem along with it, let me know. Has anyone had any experience with this or tested the proposition? No, but it's easy enough to check error rates. You may find that with a given drive and write speed, that the black CDs give you the best error rate. You may not. Second question, anybody have any experience with the Marantz CDR 300 portable cd recorder? I'm considering purchasing to replace my mini-disc, which I use at rehearsals. I've heard the Marantz limiter may reduce the sound quality noticeably. Mini-discs compress too much it seems, but I like the idea of having a limiter if it really works. Limiters all reduce quality. They strip off the top of waveforms. That is what they are there for. 16 bits is a whole lot of dynamic range. Do not be afraid to use it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
tcanyon3 wrote:
I recently read a report claiming that the quality of sound on a cd could be vastly improved by rerecording the cd onto a black color cd blank. The thesis, as I understood it, was that the black color is easier for the laser to read than standard white or silver colors. The laser doesn't read that anyway. What is black is only the plastic substrate. And it's only black at visible light wavelengths anyway; it is transparent to infrared, which is all the player cares about. The report involved extensive comparison testing. Unfortunately, I've lost the link to the report. If you find Fermat's theorem along with it, let me know. Has anyone had any experience with this or tested the proposition? No, but it's easy enough to check error rates. You may find that with a given drive and write speed, that the black CDs give you the best error rate. You may not. Second question, anybody have any experience with the Marantz CDR 300 portable cd recorder? I'm considering purchasing to replace my mini-disc, which I use at rehearsals. I've heard the Marantz limiter may reduce the sound quality noticeably. Mini-discs compress too much it seems, but I like the idea of having a limiter if it really works. Limiters all reduce quality. They strip off the top of waveforms. That is what they are there for. 16 bits is a whole lot of dynamic range. Do not be afraid to use it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
I believe the fact is they are inferior.... less reliable on older cd
players. I just had a customer bring me one which was unreadable on his player, after burning a copy with my Plextor drives, on a normal "silver" cd he had no problem reading it on the same player. Rgds: Eric "tcanyon3" wrote in message om... I recently read a report claiming that the quality of sound on a cd could be vastly improved by rerecording the cd onto a black color cd blank. The thesis, as I understood it, was that the black color is easier for the laser to read than standard white or silver colors. The report involved extensive comparison testing. Unfortunately, I've lost the link to the report. Has anyone had any experience with this or tested the proposition? Second question, anybody have any experience with the Marantz CDR 300 portable cd recorder? I'm considering purchasing to replace my mini-disc, which I use at rehearsals. I've heard the Marantz limiter may reduce the sound quality noticeably. Mini-discs compress too much it seems, but I like the idea of having a limiter if it really works. Thanks for any help you can give. TCanyon3 |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
I believe the fact is they are inferior.... less reliable on older cd
players. I just had a customer bring me one which was unreadable on his player, after burning a copy with my Plextor drives, on a normal "silver" cd he had no problem reading it on the same player. Rgds: Eric "tcanyon3" wrote in message om... I recently read a report claiming that the quality of sound on a cd could be vastly improved by rerecording the cd onto a black color cd blank. The thesis, as I understood it, was that the black color is easier for the laser to read than standard white or silver colors. The report involved extensive comparison testing. Unfortunately, I've lost the link to the report. Has anyone had any experience with this or tested the proposition? Second question, anybody have any experience with the Marantz CDR 300 portable cd recorder? I'm considering purchasing to replace my mini-disc, which I use at rehearsals. I've heard the Marantz limiter may reduce the sound quality noticeably. Mini-discs compress too much it seems, but I like the idea of having a limiter if it really works. Thanks for any help you can give. TCanyon3 |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott Dorsey wrote:
tcanyon3 wrote: I recently read a report claiming that the quality of sound on a cd could be vastly improved by rerecording the cd onto a black color cd blank. The thesis, as I understood it, was that the black color is easier for the laser to read than standard white or silver colors. The laser doesn't read that anyway. What is black is only the plastic substrate. And it's only black at visible light wavelengths anyway; it is transparent to infrared, which is all the player cares about. The report involved extensive comparison testing. Unfortunately, I've lost the link to the report. If you find Fermat's theorem along with it, let me know. That's actually a bit more likely. Fetmat's last theorem was actually proved several years ago. Has anyone had any experience with this or tested the proposition? No, but it's easy enough to check error rates. You may find that with a given drive and write speed, that the black CDs give you the best error rate. You may not. Second question, anybody have any experience with the Marantz CDR 300 portable cd recorder? I'm considering purchasing to replace my mini-disc, which I use at rehearsals. I've heard the Marantz limiter may reduce the sound quality noticeably. Mini-discs compress too much it seems, but I like the idea of having a limiter if it really works. Limiters all reduce quality. They strip off the top of waveforms. That is what they are there for. 16 bits is a whole lot of dynamic range. Do not be afraid to use it. --scott |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott Dorsey wrote:
tcanyon3 wrote: I recently read a report claiming that the quality of sound on a cd could be vastly improved by rerecording the cd onto a black color cd blank. The thesis, as I understood it, was that the black color is easier for the laser to read than standard white or silver colors. The laser doesn't read that anyway. What is black is only the plastic substrate. And it's only black at visible light wavelengths anyway; it is transparent to infrared, which is all the player cares about. The report involved extensive comparison testing. Unfortunately, I've lost the link to the report. If you find Fermat's theorem along with it, let me know. That's actually a bit more likely. Fetmat's last theorem was actually proved several years ago. Has anyone had any experience with this or tested the proposition? No, but it's easy enough to check error rates. You may find that with a given drive and write speed, that the black CDs give you the best error rate. You may not. Second question, anybody have any experience with the Marantz CDR 300 portable cd recorder? I'm considering purchasing to replace my mini-disc, which I use at rehearsals. I've heard the Marantz limiter may reduce the sound quality noticeably. Mini-discs compress too much it seems, but I like the idea of having a limiter if it really works. Limiters all reduce quality. They strip off the top of waveforms. That is what they are there for. 16 bits is a whole lot of dynamic range. Do not be afraid to use it. --scott |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:24:10 -0500, Ed Anson
wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: tcanyon3 wrote: I recently read a report claiming that the quality of sound on a cd could be vastly improved by rerecording the cd onto a black color cd blank. The thesis, as I understood it, was that the black color is easier for the laser to read than standard white or silver colors. The laser doesn't read that anyway. What is black is only the plastic substrate. And it's only black at visible light wavelengths anyway; it is transparent to infrared, which is all the player cares about. The report involved extensive comparison testing. Unfortunately, I've lost the link to the report. If you find Fermat's theorem along with it, let me know. That's actually a bit more likely. Fetmat's last theorem was actually proved several years ago. Was that FETMAT's last theorem, or FERMAT's last theorem? If Fermat's, is it an elegant and thus rather small proof, but still too large to write into the margin of a book? Of course, what mathematicians were originally looking for was the proof Fermat had in mind, but it got to the point where any proof of it is considered a large accomplishment, and there's surely been much speculation whether Fermat had a correct proof, or a faulty proof he only though was correct, or what. BTW (OOTC), for the lowdown on CDR color (and a site that fits within the margin of this Internet), check out this site: http://cdrfaq.org In fact, the very question is answered he http://cdrfaq.org/faq07.html#S7-24 ----- http://mindspring.com/~benbradley |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:24:10 -0500, Ed Anson
wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: tcanyon3 wrote: I recently read a report claiming that the quality of sound on a cd could be vastly improved by rerecording the cd onto a black color cd blank. The thesis, as I understood it, was that the black color is easier for the laser to read than standard white or silver colors. The laser doesn't read that anyway. What is black is only the plastic substrate. And it's only black at visible light wavelengths anyway; it is transparent to infrared, which is all the player cares about. The report involved extensive comparison testing. Unfortunately, I've lost the link to the report. If you find Fermat's theorem along with it, let me know. That's actually a bit more likely. Fetmat's last theorem was actually proved several years ago. Was that FETMAT's last theorem, or FERMAT's last theorem? If Fermat's, is it an elegant and thus rather small proof, but still too large to write into the margin of a book? Of course, what mathematicians were originally looking for was the proof Fermat had in mind, but it got to the point where any proof of it is considered a large accomplishment, and there's surely been much speculation whether Fermat had a correct proof, or a faulty proof he only though was correct, or what. BTW (OOTC), for the lowdown on CDR color (and a site that fits within the margin of this Internet), check out this site: http://cdrfaq.org In fact, the very question is answered he http://cdrfaq.org/faq07.html#S7-24 ----- http://mindspring.com/~benbradley |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... Portable CD recorders seem like terribly old-fashioned approaches given that we already have portable hard-drive based recorders. Portable CD recorders are real handy for when you want to hand off the recording immediately upon completion. Band rehearsals, church recitals, .... |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... Portable CD recorders seem like terribly old-fashioned approaches given that we already have portable hard-drive based recorders. Portable CD recorders are real handy for when you want to hand off the recording immediately upon completion. Band rehearsals, church recitals, .... |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Walter Harley" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Portable CD recorders seem like terribly old-fashioned approaches given that we already have portable hard-drive based recorders. Portable CD recorders are real handy for when you want to hand off the recording immediately upon completion. Band rehearsals, church recitals, ... OK, CD recorders are high on instant gratification, but their recorded product is low in terms of professional quality. They are also limited by the recording capacity of their media. They are the "point-and-shoot" cameras of the audio world. I've always used a SLR. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Walter Harley" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Portable CD recorders seem like terribly old-fashioned approaches given that we already have portable hard-drive based recorders. Portable CD recorders are real handy for when you want to hand off the recording immediately upon completion. Band rehearsals, church recitals, ... OK, CD recorders are high on instant gratification, but their recorded product is low in terms of professional quality. They are also limited by the recording capacity of their media. They are the "point-and-shoot" cameras of the audio world. I've always used a SLR. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 05:31:01 GMT, Ben Bradley
wrote: Was that FETMAT's last theorem, or FERMAT's last theorem? If Fermat's, is it an elegant and thus rather small proof, but still too large to write into the margin of a book? Of course, what mathematicians were originally looking for was the proof Fermat had in mind, but it got to the point where any proof of it is considered a large accomplishment, and there's surely been much speculation whether Fermat had a correct proof, or a faulty proof he only though was correct, or what. The proof required a good bit of maths that weren't invented when Fermat was around, plus it had to be published twice because an error occurred in the first version. Nowadays, they suppose that Fermat thought he had an proof, but later found a counterexample. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 05:31:01 GMT, Ben Bradley
wrote: Was that FETMAT's last theorem, or FERMAT's last theorem? If Fermat's, is it an elegant and thus rather small proof, but still too large to write into the margin of a book? Of course, what mathematicians were originally looking for was the proof Fermat had in mind, but it got to the point where any proof of it is considered a large accomplishment, and there's surely been much speculation whether Fermat had a correct proof, or a faulty proof he only though was correct, or what. The proof required a good bit of maths that weren't invented when Fermat was around, plus it had to be published twice because an error occurred in the first version. Nowadays, they suppose that Fermat thought he had an proof, but later found a counterexample. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
OK, CD recorders are high on instant gratification, but their recorded product is low in terms of professional quality. Wait, you doubleblinded that? 24 bit 44.1 isn't "pro" enough? Need 192KHz or something? g -- ha |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
OK, CD recorders are high on instant gratification, but their recorded product is low in terms of professional quality. Wait, you doubleblinded that? 24 bit 44.1 isn't "pro" enough? Need 192KHz or something? g -- ha |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
"hank alrich" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: OK, CD recorders are high on instant gratification, but their recorded product is low in terms of professional quality. Wait, you doubleblinded that? 24 bit 44.1 isn't "pro" enough? Need 192KHz or something? g Seriously now Hank, what do you think makes your work product more *professional quality* - is it the skill and care you put into it, or the *magnificient* gigahertz sample rate equipment you do it with? |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
"hank alrich" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: OK, CD recorders are high on instant gratification, but their recorded product is low in terms of professional quality. Wait, you doubleblinded that? 24 bit 44.1 isn't "pro" enough? Need 192KHz or something? g Seriously now Hank, what do you think makes your work product more *professional quality* - is it the skill and care you put into it, or the *magnificient* gigahertz sample rate equipment you do it with? |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Walter Harley wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Portable CD recorders seem like terribly old-fashioned approaches given that we already have portable hard-drive based recorders. Portable CD recorders are real handy for when you want to hand off the recording immediately upon completion. Band rehearsals, church recitals, ... Even orchestral sessions where you want a copy to hand to the concertmaster to take home in preparation for editing. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Walter Harley wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Portable CD recorders seem like terribly old-fashioned approaches given that we already have portable hard-drive based recorders. Portable CD recorders are real handy for when you want to hand off the recording immediately upon completion. Band rehearsals, church recitals, ... Even orchestral sessions where you want a copy to hand to the concertmaster to take home in preparation for editing. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Walter Harley" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Portable CD recorders seem like terribly old-fashioned approaches given that we already have portable hard-drive based recorders. Portable CD recorders are real handy for when you want to hand off the recording immediately upon completion. Band rehearsals, church recitals, ... OK, CD recorders are high on instant gratification, but their recorded product is low in terms of professional quality. Low in terms of professional quality? But I thought that 16-bit 44.1kHz recordings were perfect, or at least of sufficient technical quality that no higher bit depth or sample rate would ever be needed. What have you done with Arny? Peace, Paul |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Walter Harley" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Portable CD recorders seem like terribly old-fashioned approaches given that we already have portable hard-drive based recorders. Portable CD recorders are real handy for when you want to hand off the recording immediately upon completion. Band rehearsals, church recitals, ... OK, CD recorders are high on instant gratification, but their recorded product is low in terms of professional quality. Low in terms of professional quality? But I thought that 16-bit 44.1kHz recordings were perfect, or at least of sufficient technical quality that no higher bit depth or sample rate would ever be needed. What have you done with Arny? Peace, Paul |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Walter Harley" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Portable CD recorders seem like terribly old-fashioned approaches given that we already have portable hard-drive based recorders. Portable CD recorders are real handy for when you want to hand off the recording immediately upon completion. Band rehearsals, church recitals, ... OK, CD recorders are high on instant gratification, but their recorded product is low in terms of professional quality. Low in terms of professional quality? But I thought that 16-bit 44.1kHz recordings were perfect, or at least of sufficient technical quality that no higher bit depth or sample rate would ever be needed. Seriously now Paul, what do you think makes your work product more *professional quality* - is it the skill and care you put into it, or the *magnificient* gigahertz sample rate equipment you do it with? What have you done with Arny? He's the same guy he always was - who sees audio professionalism as being more than just acquiring the latest-greatest equipment. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Walter Harley" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Portable CD recorders seem like terribly old-fashioned approaches given that we already have portable hard-drive based recorders. Portable CD recorders are real handy for when you want to hand off the recording immediately upon completion. Band rehearsals, church recitals, ... OK, CD recorders are high on instant gratification, but their recorded product is low in terms of professional quality. Low in terms of professional quality? But I thought that 16-bit 44.1kHz recordings were perfect, or at least of sufficient technical quality that no higher bit depth or sample rate would ever be needed. Seriously now Paul, what do you think makes your work product more *professional quality* - is it the skill and care you put into it, or the *magnificient* gigahertz sample rate equipment you do it with? What have you done with Arny? He's the same guy he always was - who sees audio professionalism as being more than just acquiring the latest-greatest equipment. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... OK, CD recorders are high on instant gratification, but their recorded product is low in terms of professional quality. Low in terms of professional quality? But I thought that 16-bit 44.1kHz recordings were perfect, or at least of sufficient technical quality that no higher bit depth or sample rate would ever be needed. Seriously now Paul, what do you think makes your work product more *professional quality* - is it the skill and care you put into it, or the *magnificient* gigahertz sample rate equipment you do it with? What have you done with Arny? He's the same guy he always was - who sees audio professionalism as being more than just acquiring the latest-greatest equipment. And I wholeheartedly agree. My point was that you've described 16-bit 44.1kHz recordings as perfectly adequate for music recording, but you just put down CD recorders as "low in terms of professional quality". Assuming equal-quality A/D converters, there's no reason they wouldn't be as good as any other 16/44.1 recording. Hey, the last remote session I did was direct to 16-bit DAT, and it sounded very nice. My ears tell me 24-bit sounds somewhat better, and if my 24-bit gear was more portable I'd have taken it, but it ain't, so I didn't. What I did take along was a *cassette* deck -- a Nakamichi, but still a lowly cassette. I did that because the musicians were on a very tight deadline, and needed something from which they could make editing decisions. At the end of the session I handed them a couple of cassettes, they got the info to me in two days, I did the editing at home, and we were putting out CDs in a week, which was exactly what we needed to do. If I'd had a stand-along CD recorder, I'd have used that, so they could have better quality for making those edit decisions. Horses for courses. Peace, Paul |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... OK, CD recorders are high on instant gratification, but their recorded product is low in terms of professional quality. Low in terms of professional quality? But I thought that 16-bit 44.1kHz recordings were perfect, or at least of sufficient technical quality that no higher bit depth or sample rate would ever be needed. Seriously now Paul, what do you think makes your work product more *professional quality* - is it the skill and care you put into it, or the *magnificient* gigahertz sample rate equipment you do it with? What have you done with Arny? He's the same guy he always was - who sees audio professionalism as being more than just acquiring the latest-greatest equipment. And I wholeheartedly agree. My point was that you've described 16-bit 44.1kHz recordings as perfectly adequate for music recording, but you just put down CD recorders as "low in terms of professional quality". Assuming equal-quality A/D converters, there's no reason they wouldn't be as good as any other 16/44.1 recording. Hey, the last remote session I did was direct to 16-bit DAT, and it sounded very nice. My ears tell me 24-bit sounds somewhat better, and if my 24-bit gear was more portable I'd have taken it, but it ain't, so I didn't. What I did take along was a *cassette* deck -- a Nakamichi, but still a lowly cassette. I did that because the musicians were on a very tight deadline, and needed something from which they could make editing decisions. At the end of the session I handed them a couple of cassettes, they got the info to me in two days, I did the editing at home, and we were putting out CDs in a week, which was exactly what we needed to do. If I'd had a stand-along CD recorder, I'd have used that, so they could have better quality for making those edit decisions. Horses for courses. Peace, Paul |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Your challenge is to explain how one improves on the bit-perfect performance we already obtain from clear/sliver or clear/gold blanks. It has to be science fiction because extensive comparison testing shows that we already obtain the bit-perfect performance from clear/sliver or clear/gold blanks. The propopsition that is already thoroughly tested is that clear/sliver or clear/gold blanks already provide bit-perfect performance. Actually I've not seen many bit perfect CD's *BEFORE* error correction. (no arguments about the benefits of lower "correctable" errors please!) The real challenge is to show that black CD's have a lower C1 error count than other types of CD's. They don't in my limited experience of them. TonyP. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Your challenge is to explain how one improves on the bit-perfect performance we already obtain from clear/sliver or clear/gold blanks. It has to be science fiction because extensive comparison testing shows that we already obtain the bit-perfect performance from clear/sliver or clear/gold blanks. The propopsition that is already thoroughly tested is that clear/sliver or clear/gold blanks already provide bit-perfect performance. Actually I've not seen many bit perfect CD's *BEFORE* error correction. (no arguments about the benefits of lower "correctable" errors please!) The real challenge is to show that black CD's have a lower C1 error count than other types of CD's. They don't in my limited experience of them. TonyP. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Walter Harley wrote: Portable CD recorders are real handy for when you want to hand off the recording immediately upon completion. Band rehearsals, church recitals, Even orchestral sessions where you want a copy to hand to the concertmaster to take home in preparation for editing. I've recorded concerts to hard disk and burned a CDR to give to the artist before he has finished packing his equipment, on many occasions. Of course he only gets the FOH mix until I've mixed/edited the multi-track, but with a stand alone CD recorder there is no multi-track. TonyP. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Walter Harley wrote: Portable CD recorders are real handy for when you want to hand off the recording immediately upon completion. Band rehearsals, church recitals, Even orchestral sessions where you want a copy to hand to the concertmaster to take home in preparation for editing. I've recorded concerts to hard disk and burned a CDR to give to the artist before he has finished packing his equipment, on many occasions. Of course he only gets the FOH mix until I've mixed/edited the multi-track, but with a stand alone CD recorder there is no multi-track. TonyP. |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ben Bradley" wrote in message ... BTW (OOTC), for the lowdown on CDR color (and a site that fits within the margin of this Internet), check out this site: http://cdrfaq.org In fact, the very question is answered he http://cdrfaq.org/faq07.html#S7-24 Which of course is no answer at all, just further unsupported conjecture (see last paragraph). TonyP. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ben Bradley" wrote in message ... BTW (OOTC), for the lowdown on CDR color (and a site that fits within the margin of this Internet), check out this site: http://cdrfaq.org In fact, the very question is answered he http://cdrfaq.org/faq07.html#S7-24 Which of course is no answer at all, just further unsupported conjecture (see last paragraph). TonyP. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... OK, CD recorders are high on instant gratification, but their recorded product is low in terms of professional quality. Low in terms of professional quality? But I thought that 16-bit 44.1kHz recordings were perfect, or at least of sufficient technical quality that no higher bit depth or sample rate would ever be needed. Seriously now Paul, what do you think makes your work product more *professional quality* - is it the skill and care you put into it, or the *magnificient* gigahertz sample rate equipment you do it with? What have you done with Arny? He's the same guy he always was - who sees audio professionalism as being more than just acquiring the latest-greatest equipment. And I wholeheartedly agree. My point was that you've described 16-bit 44.1kHz recordings as perfectly adequate for music recording, Actually, if you read the fine print, I've described 16 bit 44.1 as a perfectly adequate distribution medium. For years I've been advocating 32/44 for tracking because of the desirability of maintaining lots of headroom. but you just put down CD recorders as "low in terms of professional quality". But not because of the digital format. My gripe is with the idea that you can burn a CD from what amounts to being a tracking session and give it to an end-user as a professional end-product. Assuming equal-quality A/D converters, there's no reason they wouldn't be as good as any other 16/44.1 recording. I do location recording of business presentations in 16/44 and even 192 Kb MP3, but that's for voice. But I still edit and mix before delivering the work product. Hey, the last remote session I did was direct to 16-bit DAT, and it sounded very nice. My ears tell me 24-bit sounds somewhat better, and if my 24-bit gear was more portable I'd have taken it, but it ain't, so I didn't. Been there, done that. What I did take along was a *cassette* deck -- a Nakamichi, but still a lowly cassette. I did that because the musicians were on a very tight deadline, and needed something from which they could make editing decisions. At the end of the session I handed them a couple of cassettes, they got the info to me in two days, I did the editing at home, and we were putting out CDs in a week, which was exactly what we needed to do. I have a hard time taking the cassette format very seriously. I make two a week for my church, but don't think I haven't tried to raise their consciousness. This is the same group that are using a stage monitor I made out of 5 door speakers from a Jeep Liberty because they can't bring themselves to tell me to go out and buy something decent, no matter how hard or how often I beg. Actually, that is the better sounding monitor of the two they have, as the other one is a decades-old Sunn with piezo tweeter. BTW, their budget is running a surplus and they just just bought 4 $1500+ Canon XGA video projectors but that is a different committee. I won that one! If I'd had a stand-along CD recorder, I'd have used that, so they could have better quality for making those edit decisions. Nomad Jukebox 3 portable hard drive player/recorders with factory warranty are currently closing for $139 on eBay. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... OK, CD recorders are high on instant gratification, but their recorded product is low in terms of professional quality. Low in terms of professional quality? But I thought that 16-bit 44.1kHz recordings were perfect, or at least of sufficient technical quality that no higher bit depth or sample rate would ever be needed. Seriously now Paul, what do you think makes your work product more *professional quality* - is it the skill and care you put into it, or the *magnificient* gigahertz sample rate equipment you do it with? What have you done with Arny? He's the same guy he always was - who sees audio professionalism as being more than just acquiring the latest-greatest equipment. And I wholeheartedly agree. My point was that you've described 16-bit 44.1kHz recordings as perfectly adequate for music recording, Actually, if you read the fine print, I've described 16 bit 44.1 as a perfectly adequate distribution medium. For years I've been advocating 32/44 for tracking because of the desirability of maintaining lots of headroom. but you just put down CD recorders as "low in terms of professional quality". But not because of the digital format. My gripe is with the idea that you can burn a CD from what amounts to being a tracking session and give it to an end-user as a professional end-product. Assuming equal-quality A/D converters, there's no reason they wouldn't be as good as any other 16/44.1 recording. I do location recording of business presentations in 16/44 and even 192 Kb MP3, but that's for voice. But I still edit and mix before delivering the work product. Hey, the last remote session I did was direct to 16-bit DAT, and it sounded very nice. My ears tell me 24-bit sounds somewhat better, and if my 24-bit gear was more portable I'd have taken it, but it ain't, so I didn't. Been there, done that. What I did take along was a *cassette* deck -- a Nakamichi, but still a lowly cassette. I did that because the musicians were on a very tight deadline, and needed something from which they could make editing decisions. At the end of the session I handed them a couple of cassettes, they got the info to me in two days, I did the editing at home, and we were putting out CDs in a week, which was exactly what we needed to do. I have a hard time taking the cassette format very seriously. I make two a week for my church, but don't think I haven't tried to raise their consciousness. This is the same group that are using a stage monitor I made out of 5 door speakers from a Jeep Liberty because they can't bring themselves to tell me to go out and buy something decent, no matter how hard or how often I beg. Actually, that is the better sounding monitor of the two they have, as the other one is a decades-old Sunn with piezo tweeter. BTW, their budget is running a surplus and they just just bought 4 $1500+ Canon XGA video projectors but that is a different committee. I won that one! If I'd had a stand-along CD recorder, I'd have used that, so they could have better quality for making those edit decisions. Nomad Jukebox 3 portable hard drive player/recorders with factory warranty are currently closing for $139 on eBay. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news 
If I'd had a stand-alone CD recorder, I'd have used that, so they could have better quality for making those edit decisions. Nomad Jukebox 3 portable hard drive player/recorders with factory warranty are currently closing for $139 on eBay. Thanks for the tip, and I'll check them out, but that still means downloading the material into the computer before I can burn CDs. Having an on-location recorder means I can give them the discs or cassettes at the end of the session. In this case, when we were under the gun, that made a lot of difference. So I chose to give them a cassette today, instead of a disc tomorrow. But if I'd had a disc today, all the better. Peace, Paul |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
If I'd had a stand-alone CD recorder, I'd have used that, so they could have better quality for making those edit decisions. Nomad Jukebox 3 portable hard drive player/recorders with factory warranty are currently closing for $139 on eBay. Thanks for the tip, and I'll check them out, but that still means downloading the material into the computer before I can burn CDs. Having an on-location recorder means I can give them the discs or cassettes at the end of the session. In this case, when we were under the gun, that made a lot of difference. So I chose to give them a cassette today, instead of a disc tomorrow. But if I'd had a disc today, all the better. Peace, Paul |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Not happy with the bass in my trunk. Help? | Car Audio | |||
| FS: Archetype Salamander 2.0 black expansion Shelf | Marketplace | |||
| FA: Def Tech BP 2002TL Black | Marketplace | |||
| O.T. Grocery clerks strike | Audio Opinions | |||
| Black Holes and Bass Riffs | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
