CD Dupes...Min & Max RMS Power?

[Mondoslug1]

So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and being anal
that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of the PMCD & the new CD's
that came back. In a perfect world levels should be the same right?

Peak Amplitude's the same...a good thing no doubt.....and average RMS Powers
the same, give or take a 100th of a db here or there.

Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune? What would cause
that to change yet the Average stay the same....and better yet - what does that
mean?



Me at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[another viewer]

In article >,
(Mondoslug1) wrote:

> So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and being anal
> that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of the PMCD & the new
> CD's
> that came back. In a perfect world levels should be the same right?
>
> Peak Amplitude's the same...a good thing no doubt.....and average RMS Powers
> the same, give or take a 100th of a db here or there.
>
> Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune? What would cause
> that to change yet the Average stay the same....and better yet - what does
> that
> mean?

it means you're trying too hard and worrying about minor meter error.
try this instead.

load up the master and the dupe in yer lil puter and sync them up bit to
bit accurate in time. all the little waveforms should line up perfectly.

then invert one of them, ie flip phase on one in the puter, and then sum
them to the outputs with no gain/eq/dither/etc change anywhere,
everything at unity, so there is no dsp going on. you should hear
silence when you play them together, ie if you have set the test up
properly and they are data identical, they will cancel perfectly.
any difference between the two files will be the signal you hear. this
is called a null test.

now go worry about selling them.

--
Iron Butt Assoc., WATR 4X, BL3 paparazzi, E.O.B.
R1100RT, R75/5

[another viewer]

In article >,
(Mondoslug1) wrote:

> So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and being anal
> that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of the PMCD & the new
> CD's
> that came back. In a perfect world levels should be the same right?
>
> Peak Amplitude's the same...a good thing no doubt.....and average RMS Powers
> the same, give or take a 100th of a db here or there.
>
> Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune? What would cause
> that to change yet the Average stay the same....and better yet - what does
> that
> mean?

it means you're trying too hard and worrying about minor meter error.
try this instead.

load up the master and the dupe in yer lil puter and sync them up bit to
bit accurate in time. all the little waveforms should line up perfectly.

then invert one of them, ie flip phase on one in the puter, and then sum
them to the outputs with no gain/eq/dither/etc change anywhere,
everything at unity, so there is no dsp going on. you should hear
silence when you play them together, ie if you have set the test up
properly and they are data identical, they will cancel perfectly.
any difference between the two files will be the signal you hear. this
is called a null test.

now go worry about selling them.

--
Iron Butt Assoc., WATR 4X, BL3 paparazzi, E.O.B.
R1100RT, R75/5

[another viewer]

In article >,
(Mondoslug1) wrote:

> So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and being anal
> that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of the PMCD & the new
> CD's
> that came back. In a perfect world levels should be the same right?
>
> Peak Amplitude's the same...a good thing no doubt.....and average RMS Powers
> the same, give or take a 100th of a db here or there.
>
> Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune? What would cause
> that to change yet the Average stay the same....and better yet - what does
> that
> mean?

it means you're trying too hard and worrying about minor meter error.
try this instead.

load up the master and the dupe in yer lil puter and sync them up bit to
bit accurate in time. all the little waveforms should line up perfectly.

then invert one of them, ie flip phase on one in the puter, and then sum
them to the outputs with no gain/eq/dither/etc change anywhere,
everything at unity, so there is no dsp going on. you should hear
silence when you play them together, ie if you have set the test up
properly and they are data identical, they will cancel perfectly.
any difference between the two files will be the signal you hear. this
is called a null test.

now go worry about selling them.

--
Iron Butt Assoc., WATR 4X, BL3 paparazzi, E.O.B.
R1100RT, R75/5

[Mondoslug1]

another viewer wrote:

>In article >,
> (Mondoslug1) wrote:
>
>> So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and being
>anal
>> that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of the PMCD & the new
>> CD's
>> that came back. In a perfect world levels should be the same right?
>>
>> Peak Amplitude's the same...a good thing no doubt.....and average RMS
>Powers
>> the same, give or take a 100th of a db here or there.
>>
>> Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune? What would
>cause
>> that to change yet the Average stay the same....and better yet - what does
>> that
>> mean?
>
>it means you're trying too hard and worrying about minor meter error.
>try this instead.
>
>load up the master and the dupe in yer lil puter and sync them up bit to
>bit accurate in time. all the little waveforms should line up perfectly.
>
>then invert one of them, ie flip phase on one in the puter, and then sum
>them to the outputs with no gain/eq/dither/etc change anywhere,
>everything at unity, so there is no dsp going on. you should hear
>silence when you play them together, ie if you have set the test up
>properly and they are data identical, they will cancel perfectly.
>any difference between the two files will be the signal you hear. this
>is called a null test.

You don't have to holler at me.
Thanks, will attempt this. Was just curious.

>
>now go worry about selling them.
>

Gonna let the wimenz sweat that out, otherwise they're gonna be washing my
dishes & clothing for along time.


>--
>Iron Butt Assoc., WATR 4X, BL3 paparazzi, E.O.B.
>R1100RT, R75/5
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Mondoslug1]

another viewer wrote:

>In article >,
> (Mondoslug1) wrote:
>
>> So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and being
>anal
>> that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of the PMCD & the new
>> CD's
>> that came back. In a perfect world levels should be the same right?
>>
>> Peak Amplitude's the same...a good thing no doubt.....and average RMS
>Powers
>> the same, give or take a 100th of a db here or there.
>>
>> Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune? What would
>cause
>> that to change yet the Average stay the same....and better yet - what does
>> that
>> mean?
>
>it means you're trying too hard and worrying about minor meter error.
>try this instead.
>
>load up the master and the dupe in yer lil puter and sync them up bit to
>bit accurate in time. all the little waveforms should line up perfectly.
>
>then invert one of them, ie flip phase on one in the puter, and then sum
>them to the outputs with no gain/eq/dither/etc change anywhere,
>everything at unity, so there is no dsp going on. you should hear
>silence when you play them together, ie if you have set the test up
>properly and they are data identical, they will cancel perfectly.
>any difference between the two files will be the signal you hear. this
>is called a null test.

You don't have to holler at me.
Thanks, will attempt this. Was just curious.

>
>now go worry about selling them.
>

Gonna let the wimenz sweat that out, otherwise they're gonna be washing my
dishes & clothing for along time.


>--
>Iron Butt Assoc., WATR 4X, BL3 paparazzi, E.O.B.
>R1100RT, R75/5
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Mondoslug1]

another viewer wrote:

>In article >,
> (Mondoslug1) wrote:
>
>> So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and being
>anal
>> that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of the PMCD & the new
>> CD's
>> that came back. In a perfect world levels should be the same right?
>>
>> Peak Amplitude's the same...a good thing no doubt.....and average RMS
>Powers
>> the same, give or take a 100th of a db here or there.
>>
>> Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune? What would
>cause
>> that to change yet the Average stay the same....and better yet - what does
>> that
>> mean?
>
>it means you're trying too hard and worrying about minor meter error.
>try this instead.
>
>load up the master and the dupe in yer lil puter and sync them up bit to
>bit accurate in time. all the little waveforms should line up perfectly.
>
>then invert one of them, ie flip phase on one in the puter, and then sum
>them to the outputs with no gain/eq/dither/etc change anywhere,
>everything at unity, so there is no dsp going on. you should hear
>silence when you play them together, ie if you have set the test up
>properly and they are data identical, they will cancel perfectly.
>any difference between the two files will be the signal you hear. this
>is called a null test.

You don't have to holler at me.
Thanks, will attempt this. Was just curious.

>
>now go worry about selling them.
>

Gonna let the wimenz sweat that out, otherwise they're gonna be washing my
dishes & clothing for along time.


>--
>Iron Butt Assoc., WATR 4X, BL3 paparazzi, E.O.B.
>R1100RT, R75/5
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Ben Bradley]

On 28 May 2004 04:06:22 GMT, (Mondoslug1)
wrote:

>So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and being anal
>that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of the PMCD & the new CD's
>that came back. In a perfect world levels should be the same right?

Yes.

So you've ripped both of these to .wav files?

>Peak Amplitude's the same...a good thing no doubt.....and average RMS Powers
>the same, give or take a 100th of a db here or there.
>
>Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune?

If they're the same bits, all the nunbers, including average RMS
power, will come out exactly the same - there won't even be "give or
take a 100th of a db."

>What would cause
>that to change yet the Average stay the same....

I can imagine what does it, let me see if I can explain.

I'm presuming the problem is that different rips of the same song
from different CD's start at different points. Zoom in and see if the
first couple hundred samples or so are the same waveshape, and it's
not shifted. I suspect it is, and this shifts the start of the
'windows' where each 'min' and 'max' are calculated, so they could be
significantly different. Whereas before, two windows were each halfway
centered on a 'valley', giving say, -23.31dB and -23.32dB, after
shifting one could be centered on the valley and the next one further
up the slope, giving -24.01dB and -22.75dB, so whereas your old
minimum was -23.32dB, your new one is -24.01dB, though they're both
from the same file. It would be much easier to show this graphically.
It's basically an artifact of the calculation process that different
starting places give different numbers. It could be calculated with
each new window starting at one sample point past the last, which
would find the same minimums and maximums, but that would take many
times longer to calculate.
The "average RMS power" over a couple of minutes is only going to
change VERY little if you lose even as much as 50 milliseconds at the
start of the file.

>and better yet - what does that
>mean?

Presuming you've ripped each song to its own .wav file - are files
of the same song from different CD's the exact same size? If not, then
the problem is your ripping software and/or CDROM drive. Some rippers
don't start at the exact same starting place every time.
Try EAC for ripping (presuming you're running s Windows computer).
When it hits an error, it keeps reading until it gets it right (it may
give up, but not until after a LONG time):
http://www.exactaudiocopy.de
After ripping, compare the exact number of bytes of each file from
different CD's - if they're different, then that's your problem. If
they're the same, then they should give the same level stats, or if
they don't, something else is going on that I don't understand.
Perhaps both the start and end times got shifted the same amount, but
that seems unlikely
I forget what all the details and possible (or even likely)
problems are for audio CD ripping, but the documentation for that
program explains a lot.

>Me at:
>http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

[Ben Bradley]

On 28 May 2004 04:06:22 GMT, (Mondoslug1)
wrote:

>So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and being anal
>that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of the PMCD & the new CD's
>that came back. In a perfect world levels should be the same right?

Yes.

So you've ripped both of these to .wav files?

>Peak Amplitude's the same...a good thing no doubt.....and average RMS Powers
>the same, give or take a 100th of a db here or there.
>
>Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune?

If they're the same bits, all the nunbers, including average RMS
power, will come out exactly the same - there won't even be "give or
take a 100th of a db."

>What would cause
>that to change yet the Average stay the same....

I can imagine what does it, let me see if I can explain.

I'm presuming the problem is that different rips of the same song
from different CD's start at different points. Zoom in and see if the
first couple hundred samples or so are the same waveshape, and it's
not shifted. I suspect it is, and this shifts the start of the
'windows' where each 'min' and 'max' are calculated, so they could be
significantly different. Whereas before, two windows were each halfway
centered on a 'valley', giving say, -23.31dB and -23.32dB, after
shifting one could be centered on the valley and the next one further
up the slope, giving -24.01dB and -22.75dB, so whereas your old
minimum was -23.32dB, your new one is -24.01dB, though they're both
from the same file. It would be much easier to show this graphically.
It's basically an artifact of the calculation process that different
starting places give different numbers. It could be calculated with
each new window starting at one sample point past the last, which
would find the same minimums and maximums, but that would take many
times longer to calculate.
The "average RMS power" over a couple of minutes is only going to
change VERY little if you lose even as much as 50 milliseconds at the
start of the file.

>and better yet - what does that
>mean?

Presuming you've ripped each song to its own .wav file - are files
of the same song from different CD's the exact same size? If not, then
the problem is your ripping software and/or CDROM drive. Some rippers
don't start at the exact same starting place every time.
Try EAC for ripping (presuming you're running s Windows computer).
When it hits an error, it keeps reading until it gets it right (it may
give up, but not until after a LONG time):
http://www.exactaudiocopy.de
After ripping, compare the exact number of bytes of each file from
different CD's - if they're different, then that's your problem. If
they're the same, then they should give the same level stats, or if
they don't, something else is going on that I don't understand.
Perhaps both the start and end times got shifted the same amount, but
that seems unlikely
I forget what all the details and possible (or even likely)
problems are for audio CD ripping, but the documentation for that
program explains a lot.

>Me at:
>http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

[Ben Bradley]

On 28 May 2004 04:06:22 GMT, (Mondoslug1)
wrote:

>So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and being anal
>that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of the PMCD & the new CD's
>that came back. In a perfect world levels should be the same right?

Yes.

So you've ripped both of these to .wav files?

>Peak Amplitude's the same...a good thing no doubt.....and average RMS Powers
>the same, give or take a 100th of a db here or there.
>
>Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune?

If they're the same bits, all the nunbers, including average RMS
power, will come out exactly the same - there won't even be "give or
take a 100th of a db."

>What would cause
>that to change yet the Average stay the same....

I can imagine what does it, let me see if I can explain.

I'm presuming the problem is that different rips of the same song
from different CD's start at different points. Zoom in and see if the
first couple hundred samples or so are the same waveshape, and it's
not shifted. I suspect it is, and this shifts the start of the
'windows' where each 'min' and 'max' are calculated, so they could be
significantly different. Whereas before, two windows were each halfway
centered on a 'valley', giving say, -23.31dB and -23.32dB, after
shifting one could be centered on the valley and the next one further
up the slope, giving -24.01dB and -22.75dB, so whereas your old
minimum was -23.32dB, your new one is -24.01dB, though they're both
from the same file. It would be much easier to show this graphically.
It's basically an artifact of the calculation process that different
starting places give different numbers. It could be calculated with
each new window starting at one sample point past the last, which
would find the same minimums and maximums, but that would take many
times longer to calculate.
The "average RMS power" over a couple of minutes is only going to
change VERY little if you lose even as much as 50 milliseconds at the
start of the file.

>and better yet - what does that
>mean?

Presuming you've ripped each song to its own .wav file - are files
of the same song from different CD's the exact same size? If not, then
the problem is your ripping software and/or CDROM drive. Some rippers
don't start at the exact same starting place every time.
Try EAC for ripping (presuming you're running s Windows computer).
When it hits an error, it keeps reading until it gets it right (it may
give up, but not until after a LONG time):
http://www.exactaudiocopy.de
After ripping, compare the exact number of bytes of each file from
different CD's - if they're different, then that's your problem. If
they're the same, then they should give the same level stats, or if
they don't, something else is going on that I don't understand.
Perhaps both the start and end times got shifted the same amount, but
that seems unlikely
I forget what all the details and possible (or even likely)
problems are for audio CD ripping, but the documentation for that
program explains a lot.

>Me at:
>http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

[Mondoslug1]

Ben Bradley wrote:


>>So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and being anal
>>that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of the PMCD & the new
>CD's
>>that came back. In a perfect world levels should be the same right?
>
> Yes.
>
> So you've ripped both of these to .wav files?
>

Yes, using "Import Audio CD" in Nuendo.

>>Peak Amplitude's the same...a good thing no doubt.....and average RMS Powers
>>the same, give or take a 100th of a db here or there.
>>
>>Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune?
>
> If they're the same bits, all the nunbers, including average RMS
>power, will come out exactly the same - there won't even be "give or
>take a 100th of a db."
>

Thank you, that's what I would think...exactly.

>>What would cause
>>that to change yet the Average stay the same....
>
> I can imagine what does it, let me see if I can explain.
>
> I'm presuming the problem is that different rips of the same song
>from different CD's start at different points. Zoom in and see if the
>first couple hundred samples or so are the same waveshape, and it's
>not shifted. I suspect it is, and this shifts the start of the
>'windows' where each 'min' and 'max' are calculated, so they could be
>significantly different. Whereas before, two windows were each halfway
>centered on a 'valley', giving say, -23.31dB and -23.32dB, after
>shifting one could be centered on the valley and the next one further
>up the slope, giving -24.01dB and -22.75dB, so whereas your old
>minimum was -23.32dB, your new one is -24.01dB, though they're both
>from the same file. It would be much easier to show this graphically.
>It's basically an artifact of the calculation process that different
>starting places give different numbers. It could be calculated with
>each new window starting at one sample point past the last, which
>would find the same minimums and maximums, but that would take many
>times longer to calculate.
> The "average RMS power" over a couple of minutes is only going to
>change VERY little if you lose even as much as 50 milliseconds at the
>start of the file.
>

This makes total sense to me. Thanks yes, the wavs were off by several samples
although I assumed they would be ripped the exact same length.


>>and better yet - what does that
>>mean?
>
> Presuming you've ripped each song to its own .wav file - are files
>of the same song from different CD's the exact same size?

I thought they were...we gave them the PMCDs and they're to copy "exactly" no?

If not, then
>the problem is your ripping software and/or CDROM drive. Some rippers
>don't start at the exact same starting place every time.

Well maybe that's it. I dunno...it's minor I know...they sound the same...was
just curious.

> Try EAC for ripping (presuming you're running s Windows computer).
>When it hits an error, it keeps reading until it gets it right (it may
>give up, but not until after a LONG time):
>http://www.exactaudiocopy.de
> After ripping, compare the exact number of bytes of each file from
>different CD's - if they're different, then that's your problem. If
>they're the same, then they should give the same level stats, or if
>they don't, something else is going on that I don't understand.
>Perhaps both the start and end times got shifted the same amount, but
>that seems unlikely
> I forget what all the details and possible (or even likely)
>problems are for audio CD ripping, but the documentation for that
>program explains a lot.
>

well there's also the strong possibility of operator error(me) but I'm ripping
from the PMCD, I'm ripping from the dupe...all using the same software so i
dunno. Like I say the same tune did seem to be off by several hundred samples.


>>Me at:
>>http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm
>
>-----
>http://mindspring.com/~benbradley
>
>
>
>
>
>





Me at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[Mondoslug1]

Ben Bradley wrote:


>>So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and being anal
>>that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of the PMCD & the new
>CD's
>>that came back. In a perfect world levels should be the same right?
>
> Yes.
>
> So you've ripped both of these to .wav files?
>

Yes, using "Import Audio CD" in Nuendo.

>>Peak Amplitude's the same...a good thing no doubt.....and average RMS Powers
>>the same, give or take a 100th of a db here or there.
>>
>>Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune?
>
> If they're the same bits, all the nunbers, including average RMS
>power, will come out exactly the same - there won't even be "give or
>take a 100th of a db."
>

Thank you, that's what I would think...exactly.

>>What would cause
>>that to change yet the Average stay the same....
>
> I can imagine what does it, let me see if I can explain.
>
> I'm presuming the problem is that different rips of the same song
>from different CD's start at different points. Zoom in and see if the
>first couple hundred samples or so are the same waveshape, and it's
>not shifted. I suspect it is, and this shifts the start of the
>'windows' where each 'min' and 'max' are calculated, so they could be
>significantly different. Whereas before, two windows were each halfway
>centered on a 'valley', giving say, -23.31dB and -23.32dB, after
>shifting one could be centered on the valley and the next one further
>up the slope, giving -24.01dB and -22.75dB, so whereas your old
>minimum was -23.32dB, your new one is -24.01dB, though they're both
>from the same file. It would be much easier to show this graphically.
>It's basically an artifact of the calculation process that different
>starting places give different numbers. It could be calculated with
>each new window starting at one sample point past the last, which
>would find the same minimums and maximums, but that would take many
>times longer to calculate.
> The "average RMS power" over a couple of minutes is only going to
>change VERY little if you lose even as much as 50 milliseconds at the
>start of the file.
>

This makes total sense to me. Thanks yes, the wavs were off by several samples
although I assumed they would be ripped the exact same length.


>>and better yet - what does that
>>mean?
>
> Presuming you've ripped each song to its own .wav file - are files
>of the same song from different CD's the exact same size?

I thought they were...we gave them the PMCDs and they're to copy "exactly" no?

If not, then
>the problem is your ripping software and/or CDROM drive. Some rippers
>don't start at the exact same starting place every time.

Well maybe that's it. I dunno...it's minor I know...they sound the same...was
just curious.

> Try EAC for ripping (presuming you're running s Windows computer).
>When it hits an error, it keeps reading until it gets it right (it may
>give up, but not until after a LONG time):
>http://www.exactaudiocopy.de
> After ripping, compare the exact number of bytes of each file from
>different CD's - if they're different, then that's your problem. If
>they're the same, then they should give the same level stats, or if
>they don't, something else is going on that I don't understand.
>Perhaps both the start and end times got shifted the same amount, but
>that seems unlikely
> I forget what all the details and possible (or even likely)
>problems are for audio CD ripping, but the documentation for that
>program explains a lot.
>

well there's also the strong possibility of operator error(me) but I'm ripping
from the PMCD, I'm ripping from the dupe...all using the same software so i
dunno. Like I say the same tune did seem to be off by several hundred samples.


>>Me at:
>>http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm
>
>-----
>http://mindspring.com/~benbradley
>
>
>
>
>
>





Me at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[Mondoslug1]

Ben Bradley wrote:


>>So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and being anal
>>that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of the PMCD & the new
>CD's
>>that came back. In a perfect world levels should be the same right?
>
> Yes.
>
> So you've ripped both of these to .wav files?
>

Yes, using "Import Audio CD" in Nuendo.

>>Peak Amplitude's the same...a good thing no doubt.....and average RMS Powers
>>the same, give or take a 100th of a db here or there.
>>
>>Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune?
>
> If they're the same bits, all the nunbers, including average RMS
>power, will come out exactly the same - there won't even be "give or
>take a 100th of a db."
>

Thank you, that's what I would think...exactly.

>>What would cause
>>that to change yet the Average stay the same....
>
> I can imagine what does it, let me see if I can explain.
>
> I'm presuming the problem is that different rips of the same song
>from different CD's start at different points. Zoom in and see if the
>first couple hundred samples or so are the same waveshape, and it's
>not shifted. I suspect it is, and this shifts the start of the
>'windows' where each 'min' and 'max' are calculated, so they could be
>significantly different. Whereas before, two windows were each halfway
>centered on a 'valley', giving say, -23.31dB and -23.32dB, after
>shifting one could be centered on the valley and the next one further
>up the slope, giving -24.01dB and -22.75dB, so whereas your old
>minimum was -23.32dB, your new one is -24.01dB, though they're both
>from the same file. It would be much easier to show this graphically.
>It's basically an artifact of the calculation process that different
>starting places give different numbers. It could be calculated with
>each new window starting at one sample point past the last, which
>would find the same minimums and maximums, but that would take many
>times longer to calculate.
> The "average RMS power" over a couple of minutes is only going to
>change VERY little if you lose even as much as 50 milliseconds at the
>start of the file.
>

This makes total sense to me. Thanks yes, the wavs were off by several samples
although I assumed they would be ripped the exact same length.


>>and better yet - what does that
>>mean?
>
> Presuming you've ripped each song to its own .wav file - are files
>of the same song from different CD's the exact same size?

I thought they were...we gave them the PMCDs and they're to copy "exactly" no?

If not, then
>the problem is your ripping software and/or CDROM drive. Some rippers
>don't start at the exact same starting place every time.

Well maybe that's it. I dunno...it's minor I know...they sound the same...was
just curious.

> Try EAC for ripping (presuming you're running s Windows computer).
>When it hits an error, it keeps reading until it gets it right (it may
>give up, but not until after a LONG time):
>http://www.exactaudiocopy.de
> After ripping, compare the exact number of bytes of each file from
>different CD's - if they're different, then that's your problem. If
>they're the same, then they should give the same level stats, or if
>they don't, something else is going on that I don't understand.
>Perhaps both the start and end times got shifted the same amount, but
>that seems unlikely
> I forget what all the details and possible (or even likely)
>problems are for audio CD ripping, but the documentation for that
>program explains a lot.
>

well there's also the strong possibility of operator error(me) but I'm ripping
from the PMCD, I'm ripping from the dupe...all using the same software so i
dunno. Like I say the same tune did seem to be off by several hundred samples.


>>Me at:
>>http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm
>
>-----
>http://mindspring.com/~benbradley
>
>
>
>
>
>





Me at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[Arny Krueger]

Mondoslug1 wrote:
> So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and
> being anal that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of
> the PMCD & the new CD's that came back. In a perfect world levels
> should be the same right?
>
> Peak Amplitude's the same...a good thing no doubt.....and average RMS
> Powers the same, give or take a 100th of a db here or there.
>
> Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune? What
> would cause that to change yet the Average stay the same....and
> better yet - what does that mean?

There might have been some slight variations in the timing of the passages
you compared.

If you want to check two CD tracks to see if they are absolutely identical,
rip them both with EAC or CDEX and use the file comparison utilities in the
respective programs.

[Arny Krueger]

Mondoslug1 wrote:
> So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and
> being anal that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of
> the PMCD & the new CD's that came back. In a perfect world levels
> should be the same right?
>
> Peak Amplitude's the same...a good thing no doubt.....and average RMS
> Powers the same, give or take a 100th of a db here or there.
>
> Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune? What
> would cause that to change yet the Average stay the same....and
> better yet - what does that mean?

There might have been some slight variations in the timing of the passages
you compared.

If you want to check two CD tracks to see if they are absolutely identical,
rip them both with EAC or CDEX and use the file comparison utilities in the
respective programs.

[Arny Krueger]

Mondoslug1 wrote:
> So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and
> being anal that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of
> the PMCD & the new CD's that came back. In a perfect world levels
> should be the same right?
>
> Peak Amplitude's the same...a good thing no doubt.....and average RMS
> Powers the same, give or take a 100th of a db here or there.
>
> Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune? What
> would cause that to change yet the Average stay the same....and
> better yet - what does that mean?

There might have been some slight variations in the timing of the passages
you compared.

If you want to check two CD tracks to see if they are absolutely identical,
rip them both with EAC or CDEX and use the file comparison utilities in the
respective programs.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mondoslug1 > wrote:
>So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and being anal
>that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of the PMCD & the new CD's
>that came back. In a perfect world levels should be the same right?
>
>Peak Amplitude's the same...a good thing no doubt.....and average RMS Powers
>the same, give or take a 100th of a db here or there.

Sounds like rounding error.

>Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune? What would cause
>that to change yet the Average stay the same....and better yet - what does that
>mean?

It means they are different songs. This is good. If all the tunes sounded
exactly the same, it would be boring.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Mondoslug1 > wrote:
>So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and being anal
>that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of the PMCD & the new CD's
>that came back. In a perfect world levels should be the same right?
>
>Peak Amplitude's the same...a good thing no doubt.....and average RMS Powers
>the same, give or take a 100th of a db here or there.

Sounds like rounding error.

>Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune? What would cause
>that to change yet the Average stay the same....and better yet - what does that
>mean?

It means they are different songs. This is good. If all the tunes sounded
exactly the same, it would be boring.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Mondoslug1 > wrote:
>So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and being anal
>that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of the PMCD & the new CD's
>that came back. In a perfect world levels should be the same right?
>
>Peak Amplitude's the same...a good thing no doubt.....and average RMS Powers
>the same, give or take a 100th of a db here or there.

Sounds like rounding error.

>Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune? What would cause
>that to change yet the Average stay the same....and better yet - what does that
>mean?

It means they are different songs. This is good. If all the tunes sounded
exactly the same, it would be boring.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mondoslug1]

Scott D. wrote:


>>Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune? What would cause
>>that to change yet the Average stay the same....and better yet - what does
>that
>>mean?
>
>It means they are different songs. This is good. If all the tunes sounded
>exactly the same, it would be boring.


hah. Very amusing. I meant comparing each song from the PMCD to the same song
on the dupe....the Min. & Max. RMS levels are different.



Me at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[Mondoslug1]

Scott D. wrote:


>>Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune? What would cause
>>that to change yet the Average stay the same....and better yet - what does
>that
>>mean?
>
>It means they are different songs. This is good. If all the tunes sounded
>exactly the same, it would be boring.


hah. Very amusing. I meant comparing each song from the PMCD to the same song
on the dupe....the Min. & Max. RMS levels are different.



Me at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[Mondoslug1]

Scott D. wrote:


>>Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune? What would cause
>>that to change yet the Average stay the same....and better yet - what does
>that
>>mean?
>
>It means they are different songs. This is good. If all the tunes sounded
>exactly the same, it would be boring.


hah. Very amusing. I meant comparing each song from the PMCD to the same song
on the dupe....the Min. & Max. RMS levels are different.



Me at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[Scott Dorsey]

Mondoslug1 > wrote:
>Scott D. wrote:
>
>>>Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune? What would cause
>>>that to change yet the Average stay the same....and better yet - what does
>>that
>>>mean?
>>
>>It means they are different songs. This is good. If all the tunes sounded
>>exactly the same, it would be boring.
>
>hah. Very amusing. I meant comparing each song from the PMCD to the same song
>on the dupe....the Min. & Max. RMS levels are different.

How different are they? The data should be the same, so the levels should
be the same. Can you do a bit-for-bit comparison?

If it's a tiny fraction of a dB, I would blame it either on rounding error or
on some blank space being added or subtracted from the beginning and ending
of each track. If it's more than that, I might worry.
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Mondoslug1 > wrote:
>Scott D. wrote:
>
>>>Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune? What would cause
>>>that to change yet the Average stay the same....and better yet - what does
>>that
>>>mean?
>>
>>It means they are different songs. This is good. If all the tunes sounded
>>exactly the same, it would be boring.
>
>hah. Very amusing. I meant comparing each song from the PMCD to the same song
>on the dupe....the Min. & Max. RMS levels are different.

How different are they? The data should be the same, so the levels should
be the same. Can you do a bit-for-bit comparison?

If it's a tiny fraction of a dB, I would blame it either on rounding error or
on some blank space being added or subtracted from the beginning and ending
of each track. If it's more than that, I might worry.
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Mondoslug1 > wrote:
>Scott D. wrote:
>
>>>Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune? What would cause
>>>that to change yet the Average stay the same....and better yet - what does
>>that
>>>mean?
>>
>>It means they are different songs. This is good. If all the tunes sounded
>>exactly the same, it would be boring.
>
>hah. Very amusing. I meant comparing each song from the PMCD to the same song
>on the dupe....the Min. & Max. RMS levels are different.

How different are they? The data should be the same, so the levels should
be the same. Can you do a bit-for-bit comparison?

If it's a tiny fraction of a dB, I would blame it either on rounding error or
on some blank space being added or subtracted from the beginning and ending
of each track. If it's more than that, I might worry.
--scott


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

[another viewer]

In article >,
(Mondoslug1) wrote:

> You don't have to holler at me.

no no no, THIS IS HOLLERING, YOU TWIT! :^D

the other thing i forgot to mention is if there is a difference and you
are certain you are running the test properly, you will want to have a
discussion with the duplicator to find out who screwed with your files.
that is a big no no. duplicators don't process my master for me, they
should make exact copies, period. anything else is unacceptable.

> Thanks, will attempt this. Was just curious.

it's not hard, and please return and post the results of the test.

--
Iron Butt Assoc., WATR 4X, BL3 paparazzi, E.O.B.
R1100RT, R75/5

[another viewer]

In article >,
(Mondoslug1) wrote:

> You don't have to holler at me.

no no no, THIS IS HOLLERING, YOU TWIT! :^D

the other thing i forgot to mention is if there is a difference and you
are certain you are running the test properly, you will want to have a
discussion with the duplicator to find out who screwed with your files.
that is a big no no. duplicators don't process my master for me, they
should make exact copies, period. anything else is unacceptable.

> Thanks, will attempt this. Was just curious.

it's not hard, and please return and post the results of the test.

--
Iron Butt Assoc., WATR 4X, BL3 paparazzi, E.O.B.
R1100RT, R75/5

[another viewer]

In article >,
(Mondoslug1) wrote:

> You don't have to holler at me.

no no no, THIS IS HOLLERING, YOU TWIT! :^D

the other thing i forgot to mention is if there is a difference and you
are certain you are running the test properly, you will want to have a
discussion with the duplicator to find out who screwed with your files.
that is a big no no. duplicators don't process my master for me, they
should make exact copies, period. anything else is unacceptable.

> Thanks, will attempt this. Was just curious.

it's not hard, and please return and post the results of the test.

--
Iron Butt Assoc., WATR 4X, BL3 paparazzi, E.O.B.
R1100RT, R75/5

[Mondoslug1]

Scott wrote:

>If it's a tiny fraction of a dB, I would blame it either on rounding error or
>on some blank space being added or subtracted from the beginning and ending
>of each track. If it's more than that, I might worry.
>--scott
>

Learning as I go...it's very minimal. Blank space has been added some and
subtracted. I just want to know why.
Doesn't the dupe guy just stick the PMCD on burn as is. Okay I could see the
start of the first tune maybe being a few samples off..



Me at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[Mondoslug1]

Scott wrote:

>If it's a tiny fraction of a dB, I would blame it either on rounding error or
>on some blank space being added or subtracted from the beginning and ending
>of each track. If it's more than that, I might worry.
>--scott
>

Learning as I go...it's very minimal. Blank space has been added some and
subtracted. I just want to know why.
Doesn't the dupe guy just stick the PMCD on burn as is. Okay I could see the
start of the first tune maybe being a few samples off..



Me at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[Mondoslug1]

Scott wrote:

>If it's a tiny fraction of a dB, I would blame it either on rounding error or
>on some blank space being added or subtracted from the beginning and ending
>of each track. If it's more than that, I might worry.
>--scott
>

Learning as I go...it's very minimal. Blank space has been added some and
subtracted. I just want to know why.
Doesn't the dupe guy just stick the PMCD on burn as is. Okay I could see the
start of the first tune maybe being a few samples off..



Me at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[EggHd]

<< So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and being anal
that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of the PMCD & the new CD's
that came back. >>

Sorry to be picky but unless this CD was mastered and the part cut on Sonic
Solutions you didn't send a PMCD.



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

[EggHd]

<< So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and being anal
that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of the PMCD & the new CD's
that came back. >>

Sorry to be picky but unless this CD was mastered and the part cut on Sonic
Solutions you didn't send a PMCD.



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

[EggHd]

<< So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and being anal
that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of the PMCD & the new CD's
that came back. >>

Sorry to be picky but unless this CD was mastered and the part cut on Sonic
Solutions you didn't send a PMCD.



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

[Mondoslug1]

another viewer wrote:

>In article >,
> (Mondoslug1) wrote:
>
>> You don't have to holler at me.
>
>no no no, THIS IS HOLLERING, YOU TWIT! :^D
>
>the other thing i forgot to mention is if there is a difference and you
>are certain you are running the test properly, you will want to have a
>discussion with the duplicator to find out who screwed with your files.

Well I'm the guy who swore there was adifference recording in Nuendo & PT using
the same hardware(converters/pre) but was sort of proven wrong.........yet I
still believe it.

Anyway, I could swear they've taken about a second of silence off on 2
tunes.....sounds fine though - just wears me out that might happen.

Again, definitely possible I'm the one mistaken.


>that is a big no no. duplicators don't process my master for me, they
>should make exact copies, period. anything else is unacceptable.
>
>> Thanks, will attempt this. Was just curious.
>
>it's not hard, and please return and post the results of the test.
>

I tried but doing something wrong.....It sure does sound out of phase though.
Still efforting.


>--
>Iron Butt Assoc., WATR 4X, BL3 paparazzi, E.O.B.
>R1100RT, R75/5
>
>
>
>
>
>





Me at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[Mondoslug1]

another viewer wrote:

>In article >,
> (Mondoslug1) wrote:
>
>> You don't have to holler at me.
>
>no no no, THIS IS HOLLERING, YOU TWIT! :^D
>
>the other thing i forgot to mention is if there is a difference and you
>are certain you are running the test properly, you will want to have a
>discussion with the duplicator to find out who screwed with your files.

Well I'm the guy who swore there was adifference recording in Nuendo & PT using
the same hardware(converters/pre) but was sort of proven wrong.........yet I
still believe it.

Anyway, I could swear they've taken about a second of silence off on 2
tunes.....sounds fine though - just wears me out that might happen.

Again, definitely possible I'm the one mistaken.


>that is a big no no. duplicators don't process my master for me, they
>should make exact copies, period. anything else is unacceptable.
>
>> Thanks, will attempt this. Was just curious.
>
>it's not hard, and please return and post the results of the test.
>

I tried but doing something wrong.....It sure does sound out of phase though.
Still efforting.


>--
>Iron Butt Assoc., WATR 4X, BL3 paparazzi, E.O.B.
>R1100RT, R75/5
>
>
>
>
>
>





Me at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[Mondoslug1]

another viewer wrote:

>In article >,
> (Mondoslug1) wrote:
>
>> You don't have to holler at me.
>
>no no no, THIS IS HOLLERING, YOU TWIT! :^D
>
>the other thing i forgot to mention is if there is a difference and you
>are certain you are running the test properly, you will want to have a
>discussion with the duplicator to find out who screwed with your files.

Well I'm the guy who swore there was adifference recording in Nuendo & PT using
the same hardware(converters/pre) but was sort of proven wrong.........yet I
still believe it.

Anyway, I could swear they've taken about a second of silence off on 2
tunes.....sounds fine though - just wears me out that might happen.

Again, definitely possible I'm the one mistaken.


>that is a big no no. duplicators don't process my master for me, they
>should make exact copies, period. anything else is unacceptable.
>
>> Thanks, will attempt this. Was just curious.
>
>it's not hard, and please return and post the results of the test.
>

I tried but doing something wrong.....It sure does sound out of phase though.
Still efforting.


>--
>Iron Butt Assoc., WATR 4X, BL3 paparazzi, E.O.B.
>R1100RT, R75/5
>
>
>
>
>
>





Me at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[Mondoslug1]

egghd wrote:

>< So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and being
>anal
>that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of the PMCD & the new
>CD's
>that came back. >>
>
>Sorry to be picky but unless this CD was mastered and the part cut on Sonic
>Solutions you didn't send a PMCD.
>

Pick on....It was.

[Mondoslug1]

egghd wrote:

>< So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and being
>anal
>that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of the PMCD & the new
>CD's
>that came back. >>
>
>Sorry to be picky but unless this CD was mastered and the part cut on Sonic
>Solutions you didn't send a PMCD.
>

Pick on....It was.

[Mondoslug1]

egghd wrote:

>< So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and being
>anal
>that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of the PMCD & the new
>CD's
>that came back. >>
>
>Sorry to be picky but unless this CD was mastered and the part cut on Sonic
>Solutions you didn't send a PMCD.
>

Pick on....It was.

[Mondoslug1]

I am gonna get ahold of the PMCD again & rip again. I had ripped it a month ago
or so I thought and still had the files on my PC. Wonder if I'm confusing the
ripped Reference CD files he gave me before he burned the PMCD........which
could be different I suppose in case the mastering engineer did decide to
change the space between some tunes one more time post Reference CD. I dunno,
that kind of makes sense to me.

[Mondoslug1]

I am gonna get ahold of the PMCD again & rip again. I had ripped it a month ago
or so I thought and still had the files on my PC. Wonder if I'm confusing the
ripped Reference CD files he gave me before he burned the PMCD........which
could be different I suppose in case the mastering engineer did decide to
change the space between some tunes one more time post Reference CD. I dunno,
that kind of makes sense to me.

[Mondoslug1]

I am gonna get ahold of the PMCD again & rip again. I had ripped it a month ago
or so I thought and still had the files on my PC. Wonder if I'm confusing the
ripped Reference CD files he gave me before he burned the PMCD........which
could be different I suppose in case the mastering engineer did decide to
change the space between some tunes one more time post Reference CD. I dunno,
that kind of makes sense to me.

[EggHd]

<< which could be different I suppose in case the mastering engineer did decide
to
change the space between some tunes one more time post Reference CD. >>

Call and ask.



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

[EggHd]

<< which could be different I suppose in case the mastering engineer did decide
to
change the space between some tunes one more time post Reference CD. >>

Call and ask.



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

[EggHd]

<< which could be different I suppose in case the mastering engineer did decide
to
change the space between some tunes one more time post Reference CD. >>

Call and ask.



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

[Mondoslug1]

><< which could be different I suppose in case the mastering engineer did
>decide
>to
>change the space between some tunes one more time post Reference CD. >>
>
>Call and ask.
>

He's got the okay to tweak the space some between tunes anyway if he feels like
it.

I'm gonna rip the PMCD again when I get back to town just to make sure I
haven't been comparing a previous Reference CD with the dupe.



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





Me at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[Mondoslug1]

><< which could be different I suppose in case the mastering engineer did
>decide
>to
>change the space between some tunes one more time post Reference CD. >>
>
>Call and ask.
>

He's got the okay to tweak the space some between tunes anyway if he feels like
it.

I'm gonna rip the PMCD again when I get back to town just to make sure I
haven't been comparing a previous Reference CD with the dupe.



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





Me at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[Mondoslug1]

><< which could be different I suppose in case the mastering engineer did
>decide
>to
>change the space between some tunes one more time post Reference CD. >>
>
>Call and ask.
>

He's got the okay to tweak the space some between tunes anyway if he feels like
it.

I'm gonna rip the PMCD again when I get back to town just to make sure I
haven't been comparing a previous Reference CD with the dupe.



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





Me at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[EggHd]

<< He's got the okay to tweak the space some between tunes anyway if he feels
like
it. >>

Understood. I was thinking this was the quickest most direct way to get an
answer.



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

[EggHd]

<< He's got the okay to tweak the space some between tunes anyway if he feels
like
it. >>

Understood. I was thinking this was the quickest most direct way to get an
answer.



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

[EggHd]

<< He's got the okay to tweak the space some between tunes anyway if he feels
like
it. >>

Understood. I was thinking this was the quickest most direct way to get an
answer.



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

[Mondoslug1]

><< He's got the okay to tweak the space some between tunes anyway if he feels
>like
>it. >>
>
>Understood. I was thinking this was the quickest most direct way to get an
>answer.
>

It probably is, I just want to double check my own end first before I bother
him.

[Mondoslug1]

><< He's got the okay to tweak the space some between tunes anyway if he feels
>like
>it. >>
>
>Understood. I was thinking this was the quickest most direct way to get an
>answer.
>

It probably is, I just want to double check my own end first before I bother
him.

[Mondoslug1]

><< He's got the okay to tweak the space some between tunes anyway if he feels
>like
>it. >>
>
>Understood. I was thinking this was the quickest most direct way to get an
>answer.
>

It probably is, I just want to double check my own end first before I bother
him.

[Logan Shaw]

Mondoslug1 wrote:

> Ben Bradley wrote:

>>>So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and being anal
>>>that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of the PMCD & the new

>> So you've ripped both of these to .wav files?

> Yes, using "Import Audio CD" in Nuendo.

OK, so why bother doing audio analysis on them? If they are just duplicating
the CDs, then these WAV files should be EXACTLY the same, bit for bit.
Every single one of the several million bits in each file should be
exactly the same as in the other. So, just compare the two WAV files to
see if the files are identical.

I don't know how you do it on Windows, but on Unix/Linux, this is as
simple as typing "diff file1.wav file2.wav". (If the files differ,
"diff" will print "binary files differ" or similar.) Hopefully Windows
has some equivalent thing built in so you don't have to go and spend $20
for some stupid "super file utility" program just to compare files...

- Logan

[Logan Shaw]

Mondoslug1 wrote:

> Ben Bradley wrote:

>>>So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and being anal
>>>that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of the PMCD & the new

>> So you've ripped both of these to .wav files?

> Yes, using "Import Audio CD" in Nuendo.

OK, so why bother doing audio analysis on them? If they are just duplicating
the CDs, then these WAV files should be EXACTLY the same, bit for bit.
Every single one of the several million bits in each file should be
exactly the same as in the other. So, just compare the two WAV files to
see if the files are identical.

I don't know how you do it on Windows, but on Unix/Linux, this is as
simple as typing "diff file1.wav file2.wav". (If the files differ,
"diff" will print "binary files differ" or similar.) Hopefully Windows
has some equivalent thing built in so you don't have to go and spend $20
for some stupid "super file utility" program just to compare files...

- Logan

[Logan Shaw]

Mondoslug1 wrote:

> Ben Bradley wrote:

>>>So we sent the PMCD off to have the first batch of dupes made and being anal
>>>that I am I'm comparing statistics from the wavs off of the PMCD & the new

>> So you've ripped both of these to .wav files?

> Yes, using "Import Audio CD" in Nuendo.

OK, so why bother doing audio analysis on them? If they are just duplicating
the CDs, then these WAV files should be EXACTLY the same, bit for bit.
Every single one of the several million bits in each file should be
exactly the same as in the other. So, just compare the two WAV files to
see if the files are identical.

I don't know how you do it on Windows, but on Unix/Linux, this is as
simple as typing "diff file1.wav file2.wav". (If the files differ,
"diff" will print "binary files differ" or similar.) Hopefully Windows
has some equivalent thing built in so you don't have to go and spend $20
for some stupid "super file utility" program just to compare files...

- Logan

[Les Cargill]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Mondoslug1 > wrote:
>
>>Scott D. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune? What would cause
>>>>that to change yet the Average stay the same....and better yet - what does
>>>
>>>that
>>>
>>>>mean?
>>>
>>>It means they are different songs. This is good. If all the tunes sounded
>>>exactly the same, it would be boring.
>>
>>hah. Very amusing. I meant comparing each song from the PMCD to the same song
>>on the dupe....the Min. & Max. RMS levels are different.
>
>
> How different are they? The data should be the same, so the levels should
> be the same. Can you do a bit-for-bit comparison?
>
> If it's a tiny fraction of a dB, I would blame it either on rounding error or
> on some blank space being added or subtracted from the beginning and ending
> of each track. If it's more than that, I might worry.


Why should there be rounding error? It should be lossless,
44.1ksample/16bit PCM to same...right?

> --scott
>
>


--
--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Mondoslug1 > wrote:
>
>>Scott D. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune? What would cause
>>>>that to change yet the Average stay the same....and better yet - what does
>>>
>>>that
>>>
>>>>mean?
>>>
>>>It means they are different songs. This is good. If all the tunes sounded
>>>exactly the same, it would be boring.
>>
>>hah. Very amusing. I meant comparing each song from the PMCD to the same song
>>on the dupe....the Min. & Max. RMS levels are different.
>
>
> How different are they? The data should be the same, so the levels should
> be the same. Can you do a bit-for-bit comparison?
>
> If it's a tiny fraction of a dB, I would blame it either on rounding error or
> on some blank space being added or subtracted from the beginning and ending
> of each track. If it's more than that, I might worry.


Why should there be rounding error? It should be lossless,
44.1ksample/16bit PCM to same...right?

> --scott
>
>


--
--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Mondoslug1 > wrote:
>
>>Scott D. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Why would Min. & Max. RMS Power be different on every tune? What would cause
>>>>that to change yet the Average stay the same....and better yet - what does
>>>
>>>that
>>>
>>>>mean?
>>>
>>>It means they are different songs. This is good. If all the tunes sounded
>>>exactly the same, it would be boring.
>>
>>hah. Very amusing. I meant comparing each song from the PMCD to the same song
>>on the dupe....the Min. & Max. RMS levels are different.
>
>
> How different are they? The data should be the same, so the levels should
> be the same. Can you do a bit-for-bit comparison?
>
> If it's a tiny fraction of a dB, I would blame it either on rounding error or
> on some blank space being added or subtracted from the beginning and ending
> of each track. If it's more than that, I might worry.


Why should there be rounding error? It should be lossless,
44.1ksample/16bit PCM to same...right?

> --scott
>
>


--
--
Les Cargill

[Geoff Wood]

Mondoslug1 wrote:

> Anyway, I could swear they've taken about a second of silence off on 2
> tunes.....sounds fine though - just wears me out that might happen.
>
> Again, definitely possible I'm the one mistaken.


Should be pretty easu to prove.

It must be great to have nothing more significant that a fraction of silence
to worry about. Then again, it could be acritical gap that is essential to
the work as a whole, but I doubt it...

geoff

[Geoff Wood]

Mondoslug1 wrote:

> Anyway, I could swear they've taken about a second of silence off on 2
> tunes.....sounds fine though - just wears me out that might happen.
>
> Again, definitely possible I'm the one mistaken.


Should be pretty easu to prove.

It must be great to have nothing more significant that a fraction of silence
to worry about. Then again, it could be acritical gap that is essential to
the work as a whole, but I doubt it...

geoff

[Geoff Wood]

Mondoslug1 wrote:

> Anyway, I could swear they've taken about a second of silence off on 2
> tunes.....sounds fine though - just wears me out that might happen.
>
> Again, definitely possible I'm the one mistaken.


Should be pretty easu to prove.

It must be great to have nothing more significant that a fraction of silence
to worry about. Then again, it could be acritical gap that is essential to
the work as a whole, but I doubt it...

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

Mondoslug1 > wrote:
>Scott wrote:
>
>>If it's a tiny fraction of a dB, I would blame it either on rounding error or
>>on some blank space being added or subtracted from the beginning and ending
>>of each track. If it's more than that, I might worry.
>
>Learning as I go...it's very minimal. Blank space has been added some and
>subtracted. I just want to know why.

Find out where it is. If it's just a sample or two between tracks, it may
be something going on with your player.

>Doesn't the dupe guy just stick the PMCD on burn as is. Okay I could see the
>start of the first tune maybe being a few samples off..

Depends. You know what kind of glass mastering system he is running? If it
is the Nimbus machine, there should be nothing goofy going on.

Also, if the track markers are shifted by a few samples, you'll see this sort
of thing change too. You need to look at the bits and see what the actual
transformation was.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Mondoslug1 > wrote:
>Scott wrote:
>
>>If it's a tiny fraction of a dB, I would blame it either on rounding error or
>>on some blank space being added or subtracted from the beginning and ending
>>of each track. If it's more than that, I might worry.
>
>Learning as I go...it's very minimal. Blank space has been added some and
>subtracted. I just want to know why.

Find out where it is. If it's just a sample or two between tracks, it may
be something going on with your player.

>Doesn't the dupe guy just stick the PMCD on burn as is. Okay I could see the
>start of the first tune maybe being a few samples off..

Depends. You know what kind of glass mastering system he is running? If it
is the Nimbus machine, there should be nothing goofy going on.

Also, if the track markers are shifted by a few samples, you'll see this sort
of thing change too. You need to look at the bits and see what the actual
transformation was.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."