"Of course the real tragedy with all this is the Compact Disc format
was designed quite some time ago and makes all this unnecessarily hard.
If someone with half a brain were to design a format these days, they'd
make it so that it would be OK for the writer to pause in the middle
of the process if necessary with no ill effects whatsoever"

god what a pompous statement,

a man ask for help finding a good cdr publishing sysytem and the knee
jerk statements that come out in favor of doing it the way they do it
because they don't do any other way. are they related to tom delay???

but what the hell
I am all alone.

Troy wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote in message
...
Troy wrote:

Some people can only give advice and not take it.You burned over
1000
CDs....well I've probably done 250,000 on many different
systems.So
in this case I think that gives me a little more experience than
you.I don't recomend your way of making CDs at all,but if it works
for you then go for it.

Trow, are you sure that wasn't 2,500,000 discs on different
systems?

It seems like your story changes everytime you get a little more
stressed.


What the hell are you talking about ????.

A story that is getting better and better after being told several
times! ;-)

I never told you how many
CDs I have done.I have never changed my story at all.We have done up
to 10,000 in a month that is more than I can say for your 1000 in a
life time.

Maybe you have burned 100 CDs not 1000.

I've done 300 in a weekend.

What ever Arny......you don't know it all......get over yourself.You haven't
got a clue on this one as you have no experience with the equipment I am
talking about.You seem to think you know it all on this subject but I know
better.By the way you should contact the 300 people and see how many of your
CDs didn't play.....I think you would be surprised how many didn't and how
many had glitches.You sold them CDs that I bet you din't even check them as
that takes to much time by hand.

I got no more time for you or your bad advice on this subject.



Arny Krueger wrote in message
...
Troy wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote in message
...
Troy wrote:

Some people can only give advice and not take it.You burned over
1000
CDs....well I've probably done 250,000 on many different
systems.So
in this case I think that gives me a little more experience than
you.I don't recomend your way of making CDs at all,but if it works
for you then go for it.

Trow, are you sure that wasn't 2,500,000 discs on different
systems?

It seems like your story changes everytime you get a little more
stressed.


What the hell are you talking about ????.

A story that is getting better and better after being told several
times! ;-)

I never told you how many
CDs I have done.I have never changed my story at all.We have done up
to 10,000 in a month that is more than I can say for your 1000 in a
life time.

Maybe you have burned 100 CDs not 1000.

I've done 300 in a weekend.

Arny Krueger wrote in message
...
Troy wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote in message
...
Troy wrote:

Some people can only give advice and not take it.You burned over
1000
CDs....well I've probably done 250,000 on many different
systems.So
in this case I think that gives me a little more experience than
you.I don't recomend your way of making CDs at all,but if it works
for you then go for it.

Trow, are you sure that wasn't 2,500,000 discs on different
systems?

It seems like your story changes everytime you get a little more
stressed.


What the hell are you talking about ????.

A story that is getting better and better after being told several
times! ;-)


Now you are trying to turn my words around ......real ****ing classy...You
show me the story that I keep changing.



I never told you how many
CDs I have done.I have never changed my story at all.We have done up
to 10,000 in a month that is more than I can say for your 1000 in a
life time.

Maybe you have burned 100 CDs not 1000.

I've done 300 in a weekend.



Good for you

dale wrote:
"Of course the real tragedy with all this is the Compact Disc format
was designed quite some time ago and makes all this unnecessarily hard.
If someone with half a brain were to design a format these days, they'd
make it so that it would be OK for the writer to pause in the middle
of the process if necessary with no ill effects whatsoever"

god what a pompous statement,

What? Properly writing a Compact Disc requires hundreds of megabytes
of data to be streamed without missing a beat. This is an unfortunate
constraint for a storage medium that is ever used on a general
purpose computer (as Compact Discs now are). It's definitely possible
to work around the constraint and design systems that work despite it,
but it would be a zillion times easier if the constraint didn't exist.

I'm not saying the people who designed the Compact Disc format
didn't do a good job for the time. It was a perfectly sound
engineering decision back during a time when they did not even
forsee that it would be possible to make a Compact Disc at home
(or even on a laptop!) with commodity equipment. But we have about
25 years of hindsight now to see that things could be so much easier
if the medium didn't require continuous streaming that cannot be
interrupted. It should be fairly obvious, so if anyone were
designing a new format, they would presumably shoot for eliminating
that constraint now. It would be nice if that were possible, but
we are obviously stuck with the Compact Disc now.

So, how is that pompous?

- Logan

Troy wrote:
By the way you should contact the 300 people and see how many of your
CDs didn't play.....I think you would be surprised how many didn't and how
many had glitches.You sold them CDs that I bet you din't even check them as
that takes to much time by hand.

If you wanted to check them, why on earth would you check them by hand?
Why not just script it so that every CD is burned and then its contents
are ripped back to WAV files (or whatever format) which are then
compared against the original to make sure they're bit perfect?

- Logan

the original poster wanted advice on a CD publishing sysytem
you launch into a diatribe on the CDA format.
it is not possible to make a compact disc at home on you computer.
a compact disc is done with a glass master and pressed in plastics
it is possible to burn a cd-r in that senario.
this involves causing a chemical reaction on a layer of the cdr with a
laser
which has nothing to do with the CDA format.

everyone here wants to do it on the CHEAP
the original poster wanted advice on a CD publishing sysytem

does no one here listen?
the original poster wanted advice on a CD publishing sysytem

do you all run protools free and use sm57's for a matched stereo pair?
it is cheaper that way.

you can pump out 120 discs per hour.

troy here is why you keep getting business
it is the quanity vs quality
if you burn too fast
the laser can not burn a clean 0 or 1
and then it becomes blurred
check with an audio archivist,
this is a disaster waiting to happen.

In article writes:

If you wanted to check them, why on earth would you check them by hand?
Why not just script it so that every CD is burned and then its contents
are ripped back to WAV files (or whatever format) which are then
compared against the original to make sure they're bit perfect?

How many could you do in an hour if you did that?

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:29:58 GMT, Troy wrote:

Its not a theory at all.When you use a bunch of computers to do burning
each
copy will be slightly different then the one before it.Not in sound
quality
but the quality of the burn.Computers have things going on in the
background
that can cause one CD to have a slight glitch during burning while the
next
one is perfect and so on.Duplicators like rimage will make sure each
burn is
bit for bit or reject it.


While I think that an automated duplicator is the right way for the
original poster to go, I don't think that Troy is being particularly fair
to the computer burner. After all, most duplication masters will be burned
in a standard burner to start with.

With all large audio CD-R batches you'll get a small percentage of
returns, no matter what they're burned on. Usually the discs themselves
are fine but the user probably tried to use them on an older player that
didn't handle CD-R's particularly well.

I use a 2 burner setup with Feurio to run off batches of CD's. I've never
seen a glitch due to background processes for the simple reason that my
burning PC is set up for the job with the bare minimum of processes
running in the background. There's nothing wrong with a system like this
for the occasional batch of CD's.

Cheers.

James.

James Perrett wrote in message
news
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:29:58 GMT, Troy wrote:

Its not a theory at all.When you use a bunch of computers to do burning
each
copy will be slightly different then the one before it.Not in sound
quality
but the quality of the burn.Computers have things going on in the
background
that can cause one CD to have a slight glitch during burning while the
next
one is perfect and so on.Duplicators like rimage will make sure each
burn is
bit for bit or reject it.


While I think that an automated duplicator is the right way for the
original poster to go, I don't think that Troy is being particularly fair
to the computer burner. After all, most duplication masters will be burned
in a standard burner to start with.


Yes the computer burns the master but the computer does not repeat the
process hundreds or thousands of times.When you burn a master for
duplication you check it by measuring the error rates and listening to it
very well to make sure it works properly.Why do this ?....because you need
to be sure the master was burned right.If it was burned right the computer
did its job and now its time to move to equipment designed to duplicate or
replicate.




With all large audio CD-R batches you'll get a small percentage of
returns, no matter what they're burned on. Usually the discs themselves
are fine but the user probably tried to use them on an older player that
didn't handle CD-R's particularly well.

I use a 2 burner setup with Feurio to run off batches of CD's. I've never
seen a glitch due to background processes for the simple reason that my
burning PC is set up for the job with the bare minimum of processes
running in the background. There's nothing wrong with a system like this
for the occasional batch of CD's.

Cheers.

James.

Logan Shaw wrote in message
...
Troy wrote:
By the way you should contact the 300 people and see how many of your
CDs didn't play.....I think you would be surprised how many didn't and
how
many had glitches.You sold them CDs that I bet you din't even check them
as
that takes to much time by hand.

If you wanted to check them, why on earth would you check them by hand?
Why not just script it so that every CD is burned and then its contents
are ripped back to WAV files (or whatever format) which are then
compared against the original to make sure they're bit perfect?

- Logan

LOL !!!!!........you do that Logan.I hope you don't have to make CDs for a
living because at that rate you'll be making a nickel an hour.

You have just made the whole process way more difficult than it has to
be.Buy a real automated duplicator and stop ****ing around.Ifyou had to do
this with 300 CDs you would be out of your mind by the end of it all.

dale wrote in message
oups.com...
the original poster wanted advice on a CD publishing sysytem
you launch into a diatribe on the CDA format.
it is not possible to make a compact disc at home on you computer.
a compact disc is done with a glass master and pressed in plastics
it is possible to burn a cd-r in that senario.
this involves causing a chemical reaction on a layer of the cdr with a
laser
which has nothing to do with the CDA format.

everyone here wants to do it on the CHEAP
the original poster wanted advice on a CD publishing sysytem

does no one here listen?
the original poster wanted advice on a CD publishing sysytem

do you all run protools free and use sm57's for a matched stereo pair?
it is cheaper that way.

you can pump out 120 discs per hour.

troy here is why you keep getting business
it is the quanity vs quality
if you burn too fast
the laser can not burn a clean 0 or 1
and then it becomes blurred
check with an audio archivist,
this is a disaster waiting to happen.


LOL.....Now you've opened a whole new can of worms with the speed thing :-)

dale wrote:
the original poster wanted advice on a CD publishing sysytem
you launch into a diatribe on the CDA format.

There had been several posts since the original post. If I had
been responding to the original post, I would've replied to it.
I was responding to a different one. Subjects drift over time.

And the subject at the time was the difference between CD
duplicators that include CD burner drives and computers that
include similar (or identical) drives. The contention was,
apparently, that dedicated duplicator machines can reliably
pump several hundred megabytes of data into an IDE CD burner
but a desktop computer can't do it reliably. That's what I
was responding to.

- Logan

Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes:


If you wanted to check them, why on earth would you check them by hand?
Why not just script it so that every CD is burned and then its contents
are ripped back to WAV files (or whatever format) which are then
compared against the original to make sure they're bit perfect?

How many could you do in an hour if you did that?

Slightly over one half as many as I could if I didn't.

- Logan

logan
the original cd standard was a compromise between sony and phillips
telefunken was to get the nod for the standard
when the biggest japanese and eroupean manufactures joined forces to
"win"
how do you check your cdr's for c1 and c2 errors?

dale

dale wrote:
how do you check your cdr's for c1 and c2 errors?

If I wanted to check for c2 errors, I'd use "readcd -c2scan".
I don't know of a convenient way to check for c1 errors.

- Logan

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:26:42 GMT, Logan Shaw
wrote:

dale wrote:
how do you check your cdr's for c1 and c2 errors?

If I wanted to check for c2 errors, I'd use "readcd -c2scan".
I don't know of a convenient way to check for c1 errors.

- Logan

Plextools with a Plextor Premium, PX712 or PX716 drive will give C1, C2
and uncorrectable error information, together with beta and jitter. The
latter two drives will also give the equivalent DVD error rates (PI and
PO). The standard version of Plextools is included with the retail version
of these drives while there is a more advanced version available at
http://www.plextools.com

Cheers.

James