I'm hoping someone can shed some light on my problem.

I have a Sony CD recorder (RCD-W500C) which is only a few weeks
old. I record analog material (cassettes and records) to an audio
CD-RW disc (TDK) and then take that to my computer to copy to a data
CD-R disc (Sony). I use an external 52x32x52 CD drive (DX-ECDRW100,
a Best Buy store brand?) I do the copy in a two step process,
from external cd drive to the hard drive and then back to the external
drive, for two reasons. It's much faster than a direct copy
from my internal cd drive to the external cd drive; and it
allows me to neaten up a gap or two between tracks, if desired. W

Sometimes (not always) when I erase and re-record a track on the
CD recorder I get a loud crack at that point on my final CD-R.

A bit of troubleshooting produced these results:

The crack actually occurs at the very end of the previous
track. The re-recorded track starts clean.

The crack is definitely not heard on the audio CD-RW disc played
on the CD recorder, whether finalized or not, or in either the
play tray or record tray.

The crack is heard in the wav file on my hard disk (before
being written to the CD-R disc). I use something called Nero
Express to "save" the tracks from the audio CD-RW.

The crack is heard whether I copy all the tracks from the audio
CD-RW disc, or whether I select just the individual track.

The crack is heard when playing the audio CD-RW directly in the
external CD drive.

The crack is NOT heard in any of the above 3 cases when I use
my pokey internal cd drive. I presume it also wouldn't be heard
in this case on the final data CD-R, but I'm not wasting one just
to confirm that.

So it seems obvious the problem is with my external CD drive. But
before I charge out and buy another one, I have to wonder if the
Sony CD recorder is some part of the problem. It certainly seems
it is doing something to make life difficult for the external cd
drive.

Can anyone tell me who the real culprit(s) are here? I feel like
this is such a simple and straightforward process that I should
have absolute, 100% confidence in the final data CD-R disc sounding
exactly like what I heard coming from my stereo while making the
recording - nothing more, nothing less. Shouldn't the lack of
error messages be proof enough that the correct bits did, in fact,
get to their proper destination? I can't spend my life double
checking every bit on the final CD.

For what there worth, a few more observations:

One time, when I was playing the corrupted wav file from my
computer hard drive, in Windows Media Player, I caught sight
of what looked like a perfect square wave at the instant of
the crack.

When I "save" tracks from the audio CD-RW disc, the transfer
rate increases continually until the copy gets to the point
in question, where the whirring stops, the transfer rate falls
off and the cd-drive just seems to take a rest for a while
before cranking up again. In this case, the crack is at the
end of track 12. The transfer rate had increased to 34.6x
by that point, at which it dropped rapidly to 17x before
picking up again a few tracks later. Even on the pokey
internal cd drive, the transfer rate drops at that point, from
about 8.3x to 6.2x. Again, this says to me that the cd recorder
does something glitchy at the point just before where re-recording
starts.

Most of the other track markers are produced on the fly manually
while in a continuous record mode. I'm not sure if a simple
pause or stop in the recording, and then starting up again, has
ever been implicated in this problem of a load crack being
introduced downstream from the cd recorder.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Donald Sauter

wrote in message
oups.com
I'm hoping someone can shed some light on my problem.
I have a Sony CD recorder (RCD-W500C) which is only a few
weeks old. I record analog material (cassettes and records) to
an audio CD-RW disc (TDK) and then take that to my
computer to copy to a data CD-R disc (Sony).

Why not copy your cassettes and records directly to the PC?

I use an external 52x32x52 CD drive (DX-ECDRW100, a Best Buy store
brand?) I do the copy in a two step process,
from external cd drive to the hard drive and then back to
the external drive, for two reasons. It's much faster
than a direct copy
from my internal cd drive to the external cd drive; and it
allows me to neaten up a gap or two between tracks, if
desired.

Sometimes (not always) when I erase and re-record a track
on the CD recorder I get a loud crack at that point on my final
CD-R.

If you chop audio at an arbitrary point, then every once in a while you will
chop the audio at a point where the amplitude peaks, and this will produce a
click.

In your case your problem seems like a matter of tools and procedures. The
procedures you use seem to be on the crude side.

The usual procedure for transcribing LPs and casettes to CD is as follows:

(1) Record the entire cassette or LP or selected regions of them to the PC's
hard drive using a PC audio interface. You could do this offline with a CD
recorder as you are doing now, and then rip the CD to obtain an audio file
on the PC.

(2) Clean up and remaster the recording on the PC using an audio editing
program such as Audacity or Audition.

(3) Subdivide the end-to-end recording into individual tracks using the
audio editing software. At this point the editor fade-in and fade-out tools
are used to ensure that the individual songs begin and end with very low
levels. The actual subdivision into tracks is performed by breaking the
music down into separate files, or inserting track marks, depending on your
preferences and available tools.

(4) Burn a new CD of the desired kind (data or audio) on the PC from the
file(s) developed in step 3.

Arny Krueger wrote:

(2) Clean up and remaster the recording on the PC using an audio
editing program such as Audacity or Audition.

There are many equal and/or superior editors that don't start with "A".

geoff

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 00:28:01 +1200, Geoff@home wrote:


Arny Krueger wrote:

(2) Clean up and remaster the recording on the PC using an audio
editing program such as Audacity or Audition.

There are many equal and/or superior editors that don't start with "A".

Is that the kind of revelation you think worth sharing with the world
when you're stoned?

AZ Nomad wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 00:28:01 +1200, Geoff@home wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

(2) Clean up and remaster the recording on the PC using an audio
editing program such as Audacity or Audition.

There are many equal and/or superior editors that don't start with "A".

Is that the kind of revelation you think worth sharing with the world
when you're stoned?

I had a roommate in college once who noticed that a large number of
psychoactive substances began with the letter M, and therefore decided
that if one were looking to discover new psychoactive substances, random
testing of other substances beginning with M would be effective.
--scott

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:

I had a roommate in college once who noticed that a large number of
psychoactive substances began with the letter M, and therefore decided
that if one were looking to discover new psychoactive substances,
random testing of other substances beginning with M would be
effective.

Merde !



geoff

AZ Nomad wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 00:28:01 +1200, Geoff@home
wrote:


Arny Krueger wrote:

(2) Clean up and remaster the recording on the PC using an audio
editing program such as Audacity or Audition.

There are many equal and/or superior editors that don't start with
"A".

Is that the kind of revelation you think worth sharing with the world
when you're stoned?

No, but Audition being vthe the answer to every query regarding PC DAW
recording becomes a little tiresome. Usally from person who's name starts
with the same letter, which unfortunately for Audition does not help it wrt
credibility.

geoff

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 10:52:09 +1200, Geoff@home wrote:


AZ Nomad wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 00:28:01 +1200, Geoff@home
wrote:


Arny Krueger wrote:

(2) Clean up and remaster the recording on the PC using an audio
editing program such as Audacity or Audition.

There are many equal and/or superior editors that don't start with
"A".

Is that the kind of revelation you think worth sharing with the world
when you're stoned?

No, but Audition being vthe the answer to every query regarding PC DAW
recording becomes a little tiresome. Usally from person who's name starts
with the same letter, which unfortunately for Audition does not help it wrt
credibility.

Or maybe both applications are audio applications. What letter, pray tell,
does the word "audio" begin with?

Wow! What a profound revelation! Better call the president!

AZ Nomad wrote:

Or maybe both applications are audio applications. What letter, pray
tell, does the word "audio" begin with?

Well that's Wavelab stuffed then !

Wow! What a profound revelation! Better call the president!

Call him what ? ;-)

geoff

"Geoff@home" wrote in message
news
AZ Nomad wrote:

Or maybe both applications are audio applications. What letter, pray
tell, does the word "audio" begin with?

Well that's Wavelab stuffed then !

Wow! What a profound revelation! Better call the president!

Call him what ? ;-)

"W", of course!

On 14 Apr 2006 10:34:09 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:


(2) Clean up and remaster the recording on the PC using an audio
editing program such as Audacity or Audition.

There are many equal and/or superior editors that don't start with "A".

Is that the kind of revelation you think worth sharing with the world
when you're stoned?

I had a roommate in college once who noticed that a large number of
psychoactive substances began with the letter M, and therefore decided
that if one were looking to discover new psychoactive substances, random
testing of other substances beginning with M would be effective.
--scott


Mydol... well what d'ya know.


-zero

"Geoff@home" wrote in message
...
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 00:28:01 +1200, Geoff@home
wrote:


Arny Krueger wrote:

(2) Clean up and remaster the recording on the PC using an audio
editing program such as Audacity or Audition.

There are many equal and/or superior editors that don't start with
"A".

Is that the kind of revelation you think worth sharing with the world
when you're stoned?

No, but Audition being vthe the answer to every query regarding PC DAW
recording becomes a little tiresome. Usally from person who's name starts
with the same letter, which unfortunately for Audition does not help it
wrt
credibility.

Well, my name doesn't start with A, and the fact is that I've found Audition
to be a very useful product at a reasonable price. Not perfect by any means,
but a good workhorse.

Peace,
Paul

"Paul Stamler" wrote ...
Well, my name doesn't start with A, and the fact is
that I've found Audition to be a very useful product
at a reasonable price. Not perfect by any means, but
a good workhorse.

And I second that notion. Remembering that Audition
was developed by Syntrillium and named "Cool Edit"
before Adobe bought them out.

Some of us have been using the product long before
its Adobe connection and new name.

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...

"Geoff@home" wrote in message
...
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 00:28:01 +1200, Geoff@home
wrote:


Arny Krueger wrote:

(2) Clean up and remaster the recording on the PC using an audio
editing program such as Audacity or Audition.

There are many equal and/or superior editors that don't start with
"A".

Is that the kind of revelation you think worth sharing with the world
when you're stoned?

No, but Audition being vthe the answer to every query regarding PC DAW
recording becomes a little tiresome. Usally from person who's name
starts
with the same letter, which unfortunately for Audition does not help it
wrt
credibility.

Well, my name doesn't start with A, and the fact is that I've found
Audition
to be a very useful product at a reasonable price. Not perfect by any
means,
but a good workhorse.

Peace,
Paul

Mr. Nomad, which PC DAW would you have us talk about? The one we use every
day? The one we chose after looking at alternatives? Or just some random
DAW software because you like a little variety?

The fact is there are a lot of similarities among the various choices. Some
are stronger than others in one respect & weaker in others. But the
processes are very similar.

I'm with Paul. I find Audition to be a really good value. It does every
thing I've asked of it. Mine is a production studio, but my skills were
built in music studios with large resources. I still have a lot of the
classic outboard equipment that I used to rely upon. I rarely use it,
finding that the software alternatives in Audition are very good and more
convenient.

Your statement about the contributor whose name starts with "A" as does
Audition and that somehow affecting his credibility gives me a real good
picture of you and your thinking process. It is not a pretty picture
pinhead.

Steve King

If you chop audio at an arbitrary point, then every once in a while you
will chop the audio at a point where the amplitude peaks, and this will
produce a click.

Even if you chop the audio on a zero crossing, you will get a click.
Rectangular windows and all. You need to chop the audio during silence, or
fade it out, then chop.

Steve King wrote:

Your statement about the contributor whose name starts with "A" as
does Audition and that somehow affecting his credibility gives me a
real good picture of you and your thinking process. It is not a
pretty picture pinhead.

Steve King

I take issue with those who profer the forementioned application as the ONLY
one worth using. That starts to sound like a religon to me.

As have said before, Audition is a fine application - Adode haven't seen fit
to remove the Windows-specific shortcuts (read "right-click") that have
taken years to start to appear in their own Mac-centric apps.

It's just that there are heaps of other audio editing apps out there too.


geoff

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.audio.tech.]
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 11:36:30 -0700, Richard Crowley wrote:


"Paul Stamler" wrote ...
Well, my name doesn't start with A, and the fact is
that I've found Audition to be a very useful product
at a reasonable price. Not perfect by any means, but
a good workhorse.

And I second that notion. Remembering that Audition
was developed by Syntrillium and named "Cool Edit"
before Adobe bought them out.

Some of us have been using the product long before
its Adobe connection and new name.

And some of us don't think it means anything if two apps start with the
same letter.

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 13:46:52 -0500, Steve King wrote:


"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...

"Geoff@home" wrote in message
...
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 00:28:01 +1200, Geoff@home
wrote:


Arny Krueger wrote:

(2) Clean up and remaster the recording on the PC using an audio
editing program such as Audacity or Audition.

There are many equal and/or superior editors that don't start with
"A".

Is that the kind of revelation you think worth sharing with the world
when you're stoned?

No, but Audition being vthe the answer to every query regarding PC DAW
recording becomes a little tiresome. Usally from person who's name
starts
with the same letter, which unfortunately for Audition does not help it
wrt
credibility.

Well, my name doesn't start with A, and the fact is that I've found
Audition
to be a very useful product at a reasonable price. Not perfect by any
means,
but a good workhorse.

Peace,
Paul

Mr. Nomad, which PC DAW would you have us talk about? The one we use every
day? The one we chose after looking at alternatives? Or just some random
DAW software because you like a little variety?

The fact is there are a lot of similarities among the various choices. Some
are stronger than others in one respect & weaker in others. But the
processes are very similar.

I'm with Paul. I find Audition to be a really good value. It does every
thing I've asked of it. Mine is a production studio, but my skills were
built in music studios with large resources. I still have a lot of the
classic outboard equipment that I used to rely upon. I rarely use it,
finding that the software alternatives in Audition are very good and more
convenient.

Your statement about the contributor whose name starts with "A" as does
Audition and that somehow affecting his credibility gives me a real good
picture of you and your thinking process. It is not a pretty picture
pinhead.

I said no such thing.

All I did was poke fun at the idiot who thought it some profound revelation
that two apps could begin with the same letter.

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 21:50:43 GMT, "Karl Uppiano"
wrote:

Even if you chop the audio on a zero crossing, you will get a click.

Sometimes. But in practice you can often get a good result.

They were recorded by Larry the Cable Guy?

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

Hey Don.

It's not total clear what you are doing. For instance, are you
re-recording just that one track (perhaps because you want to re-do it)
without totally erasing the CD-RW? If CD-RW is anything like writing
to hard disk then it's not written at the same spot the second time;
it'll be written wherever there's free space. I'm not too familiar with
CD-RW -- it's been so slow for me that I never use it -- but If you
want to stick with then I'd try the safest approach possible:
-- start with a 'clean' CD-RW (erase everything); record continuously,
leave a good bit of silence after recording a section and starting
another, don't worry about inserting track markers on the run (while
recording the tape/LP) -- do this in the software editing program.

advisability of various software packages -- contact me offline as
I might have ideas

Your old buddy Bev

wrote:
Sometimes (not always) when I erase and re-record a track on the
CD recorder I get a loud crack at that point on my final CD-R.
....
Most of the other track markers are produced on the fly manually
while in a continuous record mode. I'm not sure if a simple
pause or stop in the recording, and then starting up again, has
ever been implicated in this problem of a load crack being
introduced downstream from the cd recorder.

"Laurence Payne" lpayneNOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 21:50:43 GMT, "Karl Uppiano"
wrote:

Even if you chop the audio on a zero crossing, you will get a click.

Sometimes. But in practice you can often get a good result.

Ok, but Fourier says that you will get a wideband impulse any time you
introduce a discontinuity, even if it is a change in slope at the
zero-crossing. I'm just sayin'.

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 03:24:39 GMT, "Karl Uppiano"
wrote:

Even if you chop the audio on a zero crossing, you will get a click.

Sometimes. But in practice you can often get a good result.

Ok, but Fourier says that you will get a wideband impulse any time you
introduce a discontinuity, even if it is a change in slope at the
zero-crossing. I'm just sayin'.

So what's happening when you do a lucky digital splice and don't get a
click? It happens. A lot.

So what's happening when you do a lucky digital splice
and don't get a click? It happens. A lot.

Probably there isn't much difference in the levels of the two signals --
especially if you're splicing at a point where both are relatively low in
level.

The greater the difference in level between two samples, the higher the slew
rate needed to bridge the level -- and hence the wider th bandwidth.

"Laurence Payne" lpayneNOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in
message
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 03:24:39 GMT, "Karl Uppiano"
wrote:

Even if you chop the audio on a zero crossing, you
will get a click.

Sometimes. But in practice you can often get a good
result.

Ok, but Fourier says that you will get a wideband
impulse any time you introduce a discontinuity, even if
it is a change in slope at the zero-crossing. I'm just
sayin'.

So what's happening when you do a lucky digital splice
and don't get a click? It happens. A lot.

What's happening is that you just found out by empirical means that a splice
need not be perfect to slip though that leaky sieve called human perception.

Back in the early 70's I designed an FM muting system that only changed
stage on zero crossings. I got it to work and found that while it worked
quite a bit better than current technology at the time, it wasn't perfect
enough to warrant what was at that time kind of a lot of circuitry.