I have some questions regarding PMCDS and what might be referred to as
the PQ log, the page of time codes that the mastering engineer
includes.
From what I understand, the PQ log is important to provide to the
replicating factory.
First question: What is the difference between a Real Time PMCd and
a ref made at 4x? Is there an actual difference in what is on the
discs?? I have always understood that PMCDs should be made in Real
Time.
Second Question: What is the importanc eof the PQ log? If you place
the PMCD in a player, and the time dispalyed is 2.6 seconds different
form what the PQ log haS written on it, what could that mean?
I appreciate your responses.

In article . com,
"guselochico" wrote:

First question: What is the difference between a Real Time PMCd and
a ref made at 4x? Is there an actual difference in what is on the
discs?? I have always understood that PMCDs should be made in Real
Time.


PMCD technically does not exist anymore in any meaningful way. The only
true PMCDs were made with Sonic Solutions mastering systems on Sony CD
recorders and included the PQ information (which, by the way, is more
than just track start and end IDs) as a separate file that could be read
at properly equipped replication plants. Later, Doug Carson &
Associates, the people behind DDP, made machines that would extract the
PQ information from the TOC of a red book compatible CD or CDR. This
made PMCD less necessary. Currently the new DAWs and CD recorders don't
even support the format.

People still, however, say that they are providing PMCDs when in fact
they are just referring to red book compatible CD masters on CDR. Back
when PMCD was in common use, the Sony 900 was the king of CD burners,
and a 1X burn on this machine with the mitsui or taiyo yuden media of
the day was state of the art. Currently, single speed burns may be more
trouble than help. Media and hardware are optimized for faster speeds
and often don't perform as well, or at all, with single speed.

A couple specialty companies still have equipment and media optimized
for single speed, but I doubt anybody here has it or is going to spend
the premium to get it. A few mastering houses like to do automated
processing during load-out, while creating the actual master CD, and
this requires single speed. These are the only people likely to invest
the extra money these days. Most process on load in, or perhaps a bit in
the DAW, do the editing, and then output from the DAW to a master format
of choice, whether CD or DDP image, or occasionally DDP tape (not too
many 1630s any more for good reason). While burning very fast is still
not a good idea, 2X and 4X will usually perform better than 1X with
current conditions.

There are times when a mastering engineer will output a master image at
1X if they process on load out, or often 2X if not, and burn master
parts and reference CDs from that. This allows them to burn non critical
refs (band member copies, copies for their girlfriends etc...) at high
speed, and burn the master and critical refs at something reasonable
like 4X. Using the right equipment, the master CD and critical ref will
actually be identical. The master will still cost more because the time
taken for that initial creation of the image file is included in the
price of the master. It's usually even more if you want it fully QC'd
(Quality Control), verified, and error checked. The ref is a second copy
that doesn't require a separate image file, nor is it QC'd the same way,
so that's less time and less money, and high speed copies after that may
be less still.


Second Question: What is the importanc eof the PQ log? If you place
the PMCD in a player, and the time dispalyed is 2.6 seconds different
form what the PQ log haS written on it, what could that mean?
I appreciate your responses.


The log has more info than start and stop ID times. UPC codes, ISRC
codes, and info about the client, copyright holder, revision, and any
important notes about out-of-the-ordinary things like clicks, pops,
mixed mode files, hidden tracks etc, will be on the log. Any plant worth
using will take the brief time required to check the log against the
extracted info from the master CD to make sure it matches. This prevents
running 50,000 copies of the wrong thing if the production assistant
puts the wrong CD in the case, or if the master has been damaged in
transit, or if somebody at the plant forgets to remove the last master
from the machine (all of which have happened numerous times in the
history of the CD). If the log doesn't agree with what comes off the CD
at the plant, they double check that everything is correct on their end,
and then make a call to the client or mastering house to get to the
bottom of it. Then they either get the go-ahead, or a new master.

One thing to keep in mind about times on logs is that CD times are 75
frames, but often things are written in the common 30FPS format. There
are also global offsets that may make times appear that they are several
frames off for each track. These things everybody should know to look
for, and if that's the only issue, replication can go ahead without
pause.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
www.promastering.com

Jay-atldigi wrote:
In article . com,
"guselochico" wrote:

First question: What is the difference between a Real Time PMCd
and
a ref made at 4x? Is there an actual difference in what is on the
discs?? I have always understood that PMCDs should be made in Real
Time.


PMCD technically does not exist anymore in any meaningful way. The
only
true PMCDs were made with Sonic Solutions mastering systems on Sony
CD
recorders and included the PQ information (which, by the way, is more

than just track start and end IDs) as a separate file that could be
read
at properly equipped replication plants. Later, Doug Carson &
Associates, the people behind DDP, made machines that would extract
the
PQ information from the TOC of a red book compatible CD or CDR. This
made PMCD less necessary. Currently the new DAWs and CD recorders
don't
even support the format.

People still, however, say that they are providing PMCDs when in fact

they are just referring to red book compatible CD masters on CDR.
Back
when PMCD was in common use, the Sony 900 was the king of CD burners,

and a 1X burn on this machine with the mitsui or taiyo yuden media of

the day was state of the art. Currently, single speed burns may be
more
trouble than help. Media and hardware are optimized for faster speeds

and often don't perform as well, or at all, with single speed.

A couple specialty companies still have equipment and media optimized

for single speed, but I doubt anybody here has it or is going to
spend
the premium to get it. A few mastering houses like to do automated
processing during load-out, while creating the actual master CD, and
this requires single speed. These are the only people likely to
invest
the extra money these days. Most process on load in, or perhaps a bit
in
the DAW, do the editing, and then output from the DAW to a master
format
of choice, whether CD or DDP image, or occasionally DDP tape (not too

many 1630s any more for good reason). While burning very fast is
still
not a good idea, 2X and 4X will usually perform better than 1X with
current conditions.

There are times when a mastering engineer will output a master image
at
1X if they process on load out, or often 2X if not, and burn master
parts and reference CDs from that. This allows them to burn non
critical
refs (band member copies, copies for their girlfriends etc...) at
high
speed, and burn the master and critical refs at something reasonable
like 4X. Using the right equipment, the master CD and critical ref
will
actually be identical. The master will still cost more because the
time
taken for that initial creation of the image file is included in the
price of the master. It's usually even more if you want it fully QC'd

(Quality Control), verified, and error checked. The ref is a second
copy
that doesn't require a separate image file, nor is it QC'd the same
way,
so that's less time and less money, and high speed copies after that
may
be less still.


Second Question: What is the importanc eof the PQ log? If you
place
the PMCD in a player, and the time dispalyed is 2.6 seconds
different
form what the PQ log haS written on it, what could that mean?
I appreciate your responses.


The log has more info than start and stop ID times. UPC codes, ISRC
codes, and info about the client, copyright holder, revision, and any

important notes about out-of-the-ordinary things like clicks, pops,
mixed mode files, hidden tracks etc, will be on the log. Any plant
worth
using will take the brief time required to check the log against the
extracted info from the master CD to make sure it matches. This
prevents
running 50,000 copies of the wrong thing if the production assistant
puts the wrong CD in the case, or if the master has been damaged in
transit, or if somebody at the plant forgets to remove the last
master
from the machine (all of which have happened numerous times in the
history of the CD). If the log doesn't agree with what comes off the
CD
at the plant, they double check that everything is correct on their
end,
and then make a call to the client or mastering house to get to the
bottom of it. Then they either get the go-ahead, or a new master.

One thing to keep in mind about times on logs is that CD times are 75

frames, but often things are written in the common 30FPS format.
There
are also global offsets that may make times appear that they are
several
frames off for each track. These things everybody should know to look

for, and if that's the only issue, replication can go ahead without
pause.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
www.promastering.com

Jay,
I very much appreciate your in depth answer. it has shed light on a
confusing issue, but i can't say it makes me feel any better about the
current state of affairs when you go to master a project today. As
someone who believes in analog recording (yikes now, of course), and
really loves great sound, the apparent possible state of russian
roulette in the last process is scary. Especially being told that 2x or
4x burning of a cd master might actually be better than real time,
depending on the circumstances. Now that is scary. Maybes, in the final
stage, are scary. Your answers were very in depth and informative, and
I really do appreciate your consideration to give me all those details.

On 27 Feb 2005 23:27:52 -0800, "guselochico"
wrote:

Maybes, in the final stage, are scary.

It does seem strange that data files, with their greater
parity depth, aren't preferred. Historical artifact, or
something more sinister... The Shadow knows...

Chris Hornbeck
"Anarchy only works among those who can control themselves." -ha

I have some questions regarding PMCDS and what might be referred to as
the PQ log, the page of time codes that the mastering engineer
includes.
From what I understand, the PQ log is important to provide to the
replicating factory.

Not all of them will demand it or even look at it, but it is a nice thing
to have.

First question: What is the difference between a Real Time PMCd and
a ref made at 4x? Is there an actual difference in what is on the
discs?? I have always understood that PMCDs should be made in Real
Time.

The PMCD has the PQ information in the lead-out, and can ONLY be created
with Sonic. As far as I know, nobody actually uses PMCD format much
any more and if they do they are usually ignoring the lead-out info.
The reference disk could be made on anything with anything, and usually
nobody bothers error checking it.

Master CDs, be they in PMCD or just plain DA volume format, should be
made at whatever speed gives you the lowest error rate with the media
and recorder you're using. In many cases that will be realtime, but it
may not be, and that's why it's important to watch the error logs.

Reference CDs are just for folks to get a sense of how the sound quality
is. Error rates aren't anywhere near as critical. It's like a test
pressing in the LP days.... everybody runs ten test pressings off a cold
lathe rather than running a hundred disks through and keeping the last
ten, so the test pressing has a higher noise floor than the pressed LP
will. It's just for making sure everything is okay.

Second Question: What is the importanc eof the PQ log? If you place
the PMCD in a player, and the time dispalyed is 2.6 seconds different
form what the PQ log haS written on it, what could that mean?

Do you mean the track length or the whole disk length or the actual
time?
--scott

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

guselochico wrote:
I very much appreciate your in depth answer. it has shed light on a
confusing issue, but i can't say it makes me feel any better about the
current state of affairs when you go to master a project today. As
someone who believes in analog recording (yikes now, of course), and
really loves great sound, the apparent possible state of russian
roulette in the last process is scary. Especially being told that 2x or
4x burning of a cd master might actually be better than real time,
depending on the circumstances. Now that is scary. Maybes, in the final
stage, are scary. Your answers were very in depth and informative, and
I really do appreciate your consideration to give me all those details.

None of it should be scary, because all of it is measurable. You measure
the error rate and you use whatever gives you the lowest possible error
rate.
--scott


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

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

"guselochico" wrote:

Maybes, in the final stage, are scary.

It does seem strange that data files, with their greater
parity depth, aren't preferred. Historical artifact, or
something more sinister... The Shadow knows...

I keep thinking that. Why can't one use an image file of the data?

--
ha

hank alrich wrote:
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
"guselochico" wrote:

Maybes, in the final stage, are scary.

It does seem strange that data files, with their greater
parity depth, aren't preferred. Historical artifact, or
something more sinister... The Shadow knows...

I keep thinking that. Why can't one use an image file of the data?

Because nobody wants to take DDP format any more. For a while, the
preferred format WAS an image file of the data on Exabyte tape.
That fell out of favor because the PMCD was so much faster and cheaper.

Since there is considerable filesystem and error-correction overhead,
the size of the medium has to be considerably larger than a CD if you
send an image file. That should be a non-issue today since there are
plenty of large media available that are fast and cheap (unlike the
Exabyte which was neither).

For DVD mastering the preferred format is a DLT with an image file on
it, but the CD guys can't deal with the same tapes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article ,
(hank alrich) wrote:

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

"guselochico" wrote:

Maybes, in the final stage, are scary.

It does seem strange that data files, with their greater
parity depth, aren't preferred. Historical artifact, or
something more sinister... The Shadow knows...

I keep thinking that. Why can't one use an image file of the data?

--
ha

DDP yellow book (data on CD-ROM), sometimes called DDPi, is making some
small impact. DDP is not necessarily 8mm exabyte tape Though it was the
primary way to make a DDP master in the beginning, 8mm is rare now.
Using DDPi with a checksum seems the best way to make a master, but you
need to be sure the plant is OK with it. DDPi and checksum can also be
sent directly to the plant via ftp with no physical media ever leaving
the studio. For long CDs that won't fit on a CDR as image plus
supporting files, or 2 CD sets, you can even burn the DDP images to a
single DVD-R, but it's even more important to label clearly, log
clearly, and contact the plant ahead of time to make sure they
understand and can cope with this. The last thing you want is to get
back a bunch of replicated DVD-ROMs when you are expecting CDs. The QC
procedures at some plants have really gone to hell.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
www.promastering.com

Jay-atldigi wrote:

DDP yellow book (data on CD-ROM), sometimes called DDPi, is making some
small impact. DDP is not necessarily 8mm exabyte tape Though it was the
primary way to make a DDP master in the beginning, 8mm is rare now.
Using DDPi with a checksum seems the best way to make a master, but you
need to be sure the plant is OK with it. DDPi and checksum can also be
sent directly to the plant via ftp with no physical media ever leaving
the studio. For long CDs that won't fit on a CDR as image plus
supporting files, or 2 CD sets, you can even burn the DDP images to a
single DVD-R, but it's even more important to label clearly, log
clearly, and contact the plant ahead of time to make sure they
understand and can cope with this. The last thing you want is to get
back a bunch of replicated DVD-ROMs when you are expecting CDs. The QC
procedures at some plants have really gone to hell.

Jay, any suggestions on plants that can deal with this? Images on DVD-R
really sound to me like a much smarter way of getting data out than anything
else I've used.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott, ( or anyone), you wrote "Master CDs, be they in PMCD or just
plain DA volume format, should be made at whatever speed gives you the
lowest error rate with the media and recorder you're using. In many
cases that will be realtime, but it may not be, and that's why it's
important to watch the error logs. "
Are there error logs being compiled while the disc is being burnt
that can be viewed on the computer program, in this case some kind of
Audio Cube wav plug in? Be it realtime,or 2x, 4x? Or is it necesssary
to test afterwards? Thanks.

guselochico wrote:
Scott, ( or anyone), you wrote "Master CDs, be they in PMCD or just
plain DA volume format, should be made at whatever speed gives you the
lowest error rate with the media and recorder you're using. In many
cases that will be realtime, but it may not be, and that's why it's
important to watch the error logs. "
Are there error logs being compiled while the disc is being burnt
that can be viewed on the computer program, in this case some kind of
Audio Cube wav plug in? Be it realtime,or 2x, 4x? Or is it necesssary
to test afterwards? Thanks.

I don't know any system that can do verification on the fly, because it
would require some way of playing back after recording like having
seperate record and play heads on a tape deck.

I know a lot of the Plextor drives have built-in hardware to allow you to
do error checks on a disk after you have written to it. I don't know what
software is available for it but it has been discussed here before.

There are some commercial dedicated hardware boxes for doing error maps
and logs. I have an old first-generation Magnavox player that is
instrumented with counters for correctable and uncorrectable errors.
It can't do real maps with error locations but it's fine for a quick
go/no go test. Jay almost certainly has something much more swanky.
--scott

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

On 28 Feb 2005 13:33:57 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Are there error logs being compiled while the disc is being burnt
that can be viewed on the computer program, in this case some kind of
Audio Cube wav plug in? Be it realtime,or 2x, 4x? Or is it necesssary
to test afterwards? Thanks.

I don't know any system that can do verification on the fly, because it
would require some way of playing back after recording like having
seperate record and play heads on a tape deck.


Good modern drives appear to do some kind of basic quality checking as
they write - although they are probably just looking at the signal level
coming back from the disc.

I know a lot of the Plextor drives have built-in hardware to allow you to
do error checks on a disk after you have written to it. I don't know
what
software is available for it but it has been discussed here before.


Go to http://www.plextools.com for more information on the software. It
might also be worth looking at Plextor's European web site for a document
called "The Process of Writing" which explains Plextor's CD writing
technology in basic terms.

Cheers.

James.

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

I know a lot of the Plextor drives have built-in hardware to allow you to
do error checks on a disk after you have written to it.

Go to http://www.plextools.com for more information on the software.

Actually, only the Plextor Premium drive (and one of their DVD burners) can
use the error-checking utilities in PlexTools. It takes the combination of
both the burner and the software to do the error checking.


Allen
--
Allen Corneau
Mastering Engineer
Essential Sound Mastering
Houston, TX

In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Jay-atldigi wrote:

DDP yellow book (data on CD-ROM), sometimes called DDPi, is making some
small impact. DDP is not necessarily 8mm exabyte tape Though it was the
primary way to make a DDP master in the beginning, 8mm is rare now.
Using DDPi with a checksum seems the best way to make a master, but you
need to be sure the plant is OK with it. DDPi and checksum can also be
sent directly to the plant via ftp with no physical media ever leaving
the studio. For long CDs that won't fit on a CDR as image plus
supporting files, or 2 CD sets, you can even burn the DDP images to a
single DVD-R, but it's even more important to label clearly, log
clearly, and contact the plant ahead of time to make sure they
understand and can cope with this. The last thing you want is to get
back a bunch of replicated DVD-ROMs when you are expecting CDs. The QC
procedures at some plants have really gone to hell.

Jay, any suggestions on plants that can deal with this? Images on DVD-R
really sound to me like a much smarter way of getting data out than anything
else I've used.
--scott

Warner and Universal have both managed to make CDs from them. The guys
at the Denon plant in Madison GA were hip enough to make it work, but I
haven't used them in a while and I don't know if the same guys are
there. I'm sure there are more places that can handle it, but a call to
the plant and a definite contact person to follow up with, preferably
one who has been on the floor for more than 5 minutes total, would be
helpful. I wouldn't simply send it through a broker... then again, there
are other reasons I prefer not to use most brokers.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
www.promastering.com

Allen Corneau wrote:
I know a lot of the Plextor drives have built-in hardware to allow
you to
do error checks on a disk after you have written to it.

Go to http://www.plextools.com for more information on the
software.

Actually, only the Plextor Premium drive (and one of their DVD
burners) can
use the error-checking utilities in PlexTools. It takes the
combination of
both the burner and the software to do the error checking.


Allen
--
Allen Corneau
Mastering Engineer
Essential Sound Mastering
Houston, TX

Allen Corneau wrote:
I know a lot of the Plextor drives have built-in hardware to allow
you to
do error checks on a disk after you have written to it.

Go to http://www.plextools.com for more information on the
software.

Actually, only the Plextor Premium drive (and one of their DVD
burners) can
use the error-checking utilities in PlexTools. It takes the
combination of
both the burner and the software to do the error checking.


Allen
--
Allen Corneau
Mastering Engineer
Essential Sound Mastering
Houston, TX


Hey , thanks to all you guys who have been trying to help me out.
Here is my actual situation. I did what was essentially a flat transfer
with a supposedly respectable guy. When I got there, he did not have
Sonic, as the website indicated, but had some audio cube program. The
speakers that he had were also not the speakers on the website. He is
moving to a new studio soon, but had assured me that he was still
using all the smae equipment he had always used.Said nothing had been
moved yet, and it would be weeks or a month till that happened. Anyway,
i figured hell, ok, so the equipment ain;t the same, I'm doing a flat
transfer anyway. It shouild not matter.
the speakers essentially sucked to my ears, so listening back to the
flat transfer really did no thelp me at all. I left with two refs,
burned at 4 times, and 2 real time cds, which i insisted on. The
mastering guy felt 4xs was fine, but gave me what I asked for. I stuck
a ref in the car stereo and it sounded good, cept the vocals were a
little lacking on the sillabance (psyllabance?) of words, the final
enunciation of words. I had another ref, sounded pretrty good also,
which i sent to a label that was anxious to hear it. Left me with the 2
real times. When I finally listened on a system one real time is really
screwed up, and the other sounds like a impaired version of the good
ref.
I complained to the guy politely, that it sounds like somethign went
wrong wtih his writer, and that the vocals is whereit is most
noticable. He said he could drop the sides and that would raise the
vocals. I said that does not pleasing to me, not what I want. I want
correct cd writing. So he made me 4 more refs, at 4x, and it sound s to
me like he dropped the sides. The vocals are out front. more than on my
mixes, and, also, these 4 refs do not sound the same, one to the other.
The guy said he will burn me 4 more, but at this stage, i can't
believe he is trustworthy or cares about what he does.
How can the average schmuck insure that he is going to get proper
cd writing. Actual writing of what is in the computer?
What writers actually deliver?
I am in NYC, and not wanting to send my tapes anywhere. The tapes go
where I go, or should i say, I go where the tapes go. Not able to
travel far right now, and in a hurry. Want to stay on a AMpex, ATR with
the vacuum head, or Studer half inch machine.

guselochico wrote:
I complained to the guy politely, that it sounds like somethign went
wrong wtih his writer, and that the vocals is whereit is most
noticable. He said he could drop the sides and that would raise the
vocals. I said that does not pleasing to me, not what I want. I want
correct cd writing. So he made me 4 more refs, at 4x, and it sound s to
me like he dropped the sides. The vocals are out front. more than on my
mixes, and, also, these 4 refs do not sound the same, one to the other.

Hmm... this sounds like it may be a writer problem, but then it might be
a software problem. What you need to do is find out first of all if the
bits you sent him are the same bits on the CD or if his software is doing
something weird in the process. THEN worry about the error rate on the
discs. If you're making discs for actual duplication, the error rate
better be low, and he should have given you a piece of paper with an error
log in it so you know how low it is. If it's NOT low, the plant will be
calling you when you send it out.

The guy said he will burn me 4 more, but at this stage, i can't
believe he is trustworthy or cares about what he does.
How can the average schmuck insure that he is going to get proper
cd writing. Actual writing of what is in the computer?

They use software that really is bit-for-bit accurate, and to be honest
I don't know what out there guarantees that any more. I know Sonic does...
if you don't screw with things, Sonic leaves them alone.

Then, they use drives that have low error rates, and they do verification
and error checks on discs before they send them out to you.

What writers actually deliver?

It's not just the writer, it's the combination of writer, blank, and
writing speed. A blank that is optimal for one writer may not be
optimal for another, and it's getting harder to find blanks that are
optimized for low error rate rather than high speed operation today.

I am in NYC, and not wanting to send my tapes anywhere. The tapes go
where I go, or should i say, I go where the tapes go. Not able to
travel far right now, and in a hurry. Want to stay on a AMpex, ATR with
the vacuum head, or Studer half inch machine.

Vacuum head? I don't know of any vacuum column Ampex machines for audio.
Certainly my ATR isn't that way.

But, if you are doing a transfer from analogue tape, I would almost certainly
expect your problem is with the analogue playback and has nothing to do with
the disc cutting process. But without good monitors, you can never really
be sure. If the machine isn't well maintained and isn't set up perfectly
for the tape, it won't sound right.

In NYC, I can recommend Don Grossinger, who used to be with Europadisk
but has fairly recently gone to Masterdisk. They have a variety of machines.
I know he was running Studers at Europadisk but I think he has a choice of
a bunch of transports now. It's worth at least calling him up and asking
for advice... he's a good guy to work with and his rates aren't insane.
They aren't dirt cheap, but you get what you pay for, and my experience with
him is that he'll really transfer flat if that's what you ask for.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
guselochico wrote:
I complained to the guy politely, that it sounds like somethign
went
wrong wtih his writer, and that the vocals is whereit is most
noticable. He said he could drop the sides and that would raise the
vocals. I said that does not pleasing to me, not what I want. I want
correct cd writing. So he made me 4 more refs, at 4x, and it sound s
to
me like he dropped the sides. The vocals are out front. more than on
my
mixes, and, also, these 4 refs do not sound the same, one to the
other.

Hmm... this sounds like it may be a writer problem, but then it might
be
a software problem. What you need to do is find out first of all if
the
bits you sent him are the same bits on the CD or if his software is
doing
something weird in the process. THEN worry about the error rate on
the
discs. If you're making discs for actual duplication, the error rate
better be low, and he should have given you a piece of paper with an
error
log in it so you know how low it is. If it's NOT low, the plant will
be
calling you when you send it out.

The guy said he will burn me 4 more, but at this stage, i can't
believe he is trustworthy or cares about what he does.
How can the average schmuck insure that he is going to get
proper
cd writing. Actual writing of what is in the computer?

They use software that really is bit-for-bit accurate, and to be
honest
I don't know what out there guarantees that any more. I know Sonic
does...
if you don't screw with things, Sonic leaves them alone.

Then, they use drives that have low error rates, and they do
verification
and error checks on discs before they send them out to you.

What writers actually deliver?

It's not just the writer, it's the combination of writer, blank, and
writing speed. A blank that is optimal for one writer may not be
optimal for another, and it's getting harder to find blanks that are
optimized for low error rate rather than high speed operation today.

I am in NYC, and not wanting to send my tapes anywhere. The tapes go
where I go, or should i say, I go where the tapes go. Not able to
travel far right now, and in a hurry. Want to stay on a AMpex, ATR
with
the vacuum head, or Studer half inch machine.

Vacuum head? I don't know of any vacuum column Ampex machines for
audio.
Certainly my ATR isn't that way.

But, if you are doing a transfer from analogue tape, I would almost
certainly
expect your problem is with the analogue playback and has nothing to
do with
the disc cutting process. But without good monitors, you can never
really
be sure. If the machine isn't well maintained and isn't set up
perfectly
for the tape, it won't sound right.

In NYC, I can recommend Don Grossinger, who used to be with
Europadisk
but has fairly recently gone to Masterdisk. They have a variety of
machines.
I know he was running Studers at Europadisk but I think he has a
choice of
a bunch of transports now. It's worth at least calling him up and
asking
for advice... he's a good guy to work with and his rates aren't
insane.
They aren't dirt cheap, but you get what you pay for, and my
experience with
him is that he'll really transfer flat if that's what you ask for.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
there are ATRs floating around that this guy Mike Spitz reworked so
you can put a vacuum head on em. Anyway, my transfer was flat, except
one song. No compression, no nothing, at least I witnessed it on what I
walked out with the first day. I appreciate your reccomendation.
Butthe problem here has to be the writer, cause everything form that
first day sounded so different. I took it to the engineer that mixed it
for me to listen to , just yesterday, he was really surpised. Again,
the one ref that i have had in my car for 3 weeks sounds damn good.
Problem it's been in my car 92 years old, 66 K miles) for most of 3
weeks, driving over pot holes. There definitely are 2 scratches or
marks visible in the written part, and I would hate to send that to the
factory as my only master. Pretty likely it would not pass their
criteria.

On 5 Mar 2005 18:35:43 -0800, "guselochico"
wrote:

I left with two refs,
burned at 4 times, and 2 real time cds, which i insisted on. The
mastering guy felt 4xs was fine, but gave me what I asked for.

Today's CD media may perform very badly at 1X burning speed. They
aren't designed for it.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect