[Edward R Morris]

Does anyone know of a cd burner that can be attached to the tape outputs of
an integrated amplifier so one doesn't have to use a computer to copy music
from LP to CD?

Thanks for any info,
Edward Morris

[Phil Allison]

"Edward R Morris"

Does anyone know of a cd burner that can be attached to the tape outputs
of
an integrated amplifier so one doesn't have to use a computer to copy
music
from LP to CD?


** Google " CD recorder " for heaven's sake.

Yamaha, Sony and Denon make them - et alia.




......... Phil

[Edward R Morris]

Thanks for your kindness. I guess electronics wizards like I'm not can't
ask a simple question without getting a smartass answer.

Thanks Phil,
Eddie

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Edward R Morris"

Does anyone know of a cd burner that can be attached to the tape outputs
of
an integrated amplifier so one doesn't have to use a computer to copy
music
from LP to CD?


** Google " CD recorder " for heaven's sake.

Yamaha, Sony and Denon make them - et alia.




......... Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Edward R Morris"

Thanks for your kindness. I guess electronics wizards like I'm not can't
ask a simple question without getting a smartass answer.

Thanks Phil,


** No thanks for you smartarse question posted on a tube audio newsgroup.

I supplied you a nice, simple answer.

So now , you can go **** yourself.





......... Phil

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Edward R Morris" wrote in message
.. .
Does anyone know of a cd burner that can be attached to the tape outputs
of
an integrated amplifier so one doesn't have to use a computer to copy
music
from LP to CD?

Yes I have such CD recorder, the HHB which is seen in many
studios and mastering suites. There are two models, the Plus version
has balanced line analgue on XLR which you may or may not need.

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/produ...4&src=3SOSWXXA


Highly recommended.
Iain

[Arny Krueger]

"Edward R Morris" wrote in message


Does anyone know of a cd burner that can be attached to
the tape outputs of an integrated amplifier so one
doesn't have to use a computer to copy music from LP to
CD?

Yes, they are called stand-alone audio CD recorders.

They come in two styles:

consumer, which requires special CD-R blanks that have had a royalty paid on
them
professional, which use the same CD-R blanks as computers

Consumer audio CD burners have pretty well dropped from the marketplace

I've used such devices made by Sony, HHB, and Tascam. I prefer the Tascam
burners, because they finalize about twice as fast.

That all said, I'd never use one to transcribe a LP. Computers are easier to
use, and more flexible.

[PeterD]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:34:34 -0600, "Edward R Morris"
wrote:

Thanks for your kindness. I guess electronics wizards like I'm not can't
ask a simple question without getting a smartass answer.

Thanks Phil,
Eddie


Actually that was a smart answer... You did Google before asking
right?

[PeterD]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:23:19 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


"Edward R Morris"

Thanks for your kindness. I guess electronics wizards like I'm not can't
ask a simple question without getting a smartass answer.

Thanks Phil,


** No thanks for you smartarse question posted on a tube audio newsgroup.

I supplied you a nice, simple answer.

So now , you can go **** yourself.





........ Phil


Geeze, Phil, now he'll post asking "How do I **** myself?" and start
*another* thread.

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Edward R Morris" wrote in message


Does anyone know of a cd burner that can be attached to
the tape outputs of an integrated amplifier so one
doesn't have to use a computer to copy music from LP to
CD?

Yes, they are called stand-alone audio CD recorders.

They come in two styles:

consumer, which requires special CD-R blanks that have had a royalty paid on
them
professional, which use the same CD-R blanks as computers

Perhaps it is my punishment for not using windows, but my computer will
not write the standard audio CD format onto a computer CD-R. It will
write MP3 format audio on computer CD-Rs, which can be read by audio CD
players which include MP3 playback capability.

Consumer audio CD burners have pretty well dropped from the marketplace

I've used such devices made by Sony, HHB, and Tascam. I prefer the Tascam
burners, because they finalize about twice as fast.

That all said, I'd never use one to transcribe a LP. Computers are easier to
use, and more flexible.

Granted computers are more flexible, but the stand alone CD burners do a
credible job transcribing LP's, they even automatically identify and
mark the individual tracks in the process.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Arny Krueger]

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Edward R Morris" wrote in message


Does anyone know of a cd burner that can be attached to
the tape outputs of an integrated amplifier so one
doesn't have to use a computer to copy music from LP to
CD?

Yes, they are called stand-alone audio CD recorders.

They come in two styles:

consumer, which requires special CD-R blanks that have had a royalty paid
on
them
professional, which use the same CD-R blanks as computers

Perhaps it is my punishment for not using windows, but my computer will
not write the standard audio CD format onto a computer CD-R.

IME that is pretty unusual.

It will
write MP3 format audio on computer CD-Rs, which can be read by audio CD
players which include MP3 playback capability.

Consumer audio CD burners have pretty well dropped from the marketplace

I've used such devices made by Sony, HHB, and Tascam. I prefer the Tascam
burners, because they finalize about twice as fast.

That all said, I'd never use one to transcribe a LP. Computers are easier
to
use, and more flexible.

Granted computers are more flexible, but the stand alone CD burners do a
credible job transcribing LP's,

Depends what you call credible. I don't call transcribing LPs without good
tic and pop management "credible".

they even automatically identify and
mark the individual tracks in the process.

IME, that function is controlled by the level of the audo. If the audio is
less than a certain amount, it must be a space between tracks. It's not the
most reliable system in the world.

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

Perhaps it is my punishment for not using windows, but my computer will
not write the standard audio CD format onto a computer CD-R.

It's not a question of the *computer*, it's a question of the burning program.

Graham

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

but the stand alone CD burners .... even automatically identify and
mark the individual tracks in the process.

Unreliably I would imagine.

Graham

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

Perhaps it is my punishment for not using windows, but my computer will
not write the standard audio CD format onto a computer CD-R.

It's not a question of the *computer*, it's a question of the burning program.

Yes, I thought about mentioning that, but then I wouldn't have been able
to throw the windows reference in.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:

Perhaps it is my punishment for not using windows, but my computer will
not write the standard audio CD format onto a computer CD-R.

It's not a question of the *computer*, it's a question of the burning program.

Yes, I thought about mentioning that, but then I wouldn't have been able
to throw the windows reference in.

That doesn't surprise me.

Graham

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...

Granted computers are more flexible, but the stand alone CD burners do a
credible job transcribing LP's, they even automatically identify and
mark the individual tracks in the process.

They also manage to write a CD which is acceptable to some of the
more fussy pro CD players, that insist on everything being red book to
the letter. A mastering suite I know has an old but highly revered Studer
player which spits out anything except original music CDs and those
made in reatime on a machine like the HHB. No computer-burned disc
is acceptable. How does it know? I have been told the difference is
in the way the TOC is written. Any ideas?

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..


Granted computers are more flexible, but the stand alone CD burners do a
credible job transcribing LP's,

Depends what you call credible. I don't call transcribing LPs without good
tic and pop management "credible".

I made a safety transcription of the new Ray Charles/Count Basie LP.
Not a click, tick or pop on four sides!

People who use PCs and CEP (now Audition) speak
about the necessity to defragment the hard disc before the
initial transcriptionfrom vinyl. Otherwise, it seems the
sequencer may stop playing during a 60 min cloning to
CD if it cannot find the data fast enough.

This doesn't seem to happen on Mac based systems
which seem a lot less prone to fragmentation.
Prof workstations "look ahead" all the time
but still most studios seem to defrag at least once
a week and between projects.


they even automatically identify and
mark the individual tracks in the process.

IME, that function is controlled by the level of the audo. If the audio is
less than a certain amount, it must be a space between tracks. It's not
the most reliable system in the world.

Actually, it is totally reliable. One can set both the time that
must be detected, and also the depth of signal attenuation.
3 secs and 50dB is a common default. You can even set the
system to update the ID on applause for concert recordings.

Automatic scrolling on disc cutting lathes also works
in exactly this fashion.

Manual marking, or entering markers from a keypad
is of course another option.

Iain

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..


Granted computers are more flexible, but the stand alone CD burners do a
credible job transcribing LP's,

Depends what you call credible. I don't call transcribing LPs without
good tic and pop management "credible".

I made a safety transcription of the new Ray Charles/Count Basie LP.
Not a click, tick or pop on four sides!

....that your superannuated ears and biased brain cared to recall.

People who use PCs and CEP (now Audition) speak
about the necessity to defragment the hard disc before the
initial transcriptionfrom vinyl.

People say lots of crazy things. Lots of it traces back to the days of 540
meg, 5400 rpm hard drives.

Otherwise, it seems the
sequencer may stop playing during a 60 min cloning to
CD if it cannot find the data fast enough.

Then there are the people who still haven't bought a modern CD burner that
knows what to do if somehow there is a data underrun.

This doesn't seem to happen on Mac based systems
which seem a lot less prone to fragmentation.

If you believe that...

Prof workstations "look ahead" all the time
but still most studios seem to defrag at least once
a week and between projects.

Good policies, but policies with declining relevance.

they even automatically identify and
mark the individual tracks in the process.

IME, that function is controlled by the level of the audo. If the audio
is less than a certain amount, it must be a space between tracks. It's
not the most reliable system in the world.

Actually, it is totally reliable.

Inexperience speaks!

One can set both the time that
must be detected, and also the depth of signal attenuation.
3 secs and 50dB is a common default. You can even set the
system to update the ID on applause for concert recordings.

I have these features available on our HHB burner at church. Long story
short - we turn them off and do it manually for a lot of reasons.

Automatic scrolling on disc cutting lathes also works
in exactly this fashion.

When the masters are tapes, it can be a different story.

Manual marking, or entering markers from a keypad
is of course another option.

It is 100% reliable, even when all the automated stuff fails.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..


Granted computers are more flexible, but the stand alone CD burners do
a
credible job transcribing LP's,

Depends what you call credible. I don't call transcribing LPs without
good tic and pop management "credible".

I made a safety transcription of the new Ray Charles/Count Basie LP.
Not a click, tick or pop on four sides!

...that your superannuated ears and biased brain cared to recall.

People who use PCs and CEP (now Audition) speak
about the necessity to defragment the hard disc before the
initial transcriptionfrom vinyl.

People say lots of crazy things. Lots of it traces back to the days of
540 meg, 5400 rpm hard drives.

Could be. But you are familiar with this?
IIRC you use Audition.

Otherwise, it seems the
sequencer may stop playing during a 60 min cloning to
CD if it cannot find the data fast enough.

Then there are the people who still haven't bought a modern CD burner that
knows what to do if somehow there is a data underrun.

This doesn't seem to happen on Mac based systems
which seem a lot less prone to fragmentation.

If you believe that...

I have found that to be the case with ProTools. One can
download a large project, add new elements, edit,
submix and mix intrernally, and then upload to archive,
and the disks show a very low level of fragmentation.

People say that similar systems running under Windows
fair much worse. I would be interested in your findings,
Arny.


Prof workstations "look ahead" all the time
but still most studios seem to defrag at least once
a week and between projects.

Good policies, but policies with declining relevance.

Maybe belt and braces, but one doesn't want the sequencer
to grind to a halt during a live transmission:-) IME things
like this are the mark of a pro system.


they even automatically identify and
mark the individual tracks in the process.

IME, that function is controlled by the level of the audo. If the audio
is less than a certain amount, it must be a space between tracks. It's
not the most reliable system in the world.

Actually, it is totally reliable.

Inexperience speaks!

I doubt if you do more CD mastering that I and
certainly not at a professional level.

I have never seen an HHB miss a beat. If yours does
then perhaps you are not setting it up properly.

One can set both the time that
must be detected, and also the depth of signal attenuation.
3 secs and 50dB is a common default. You can even set the
system to update the ID on applause for concert recordings.

I have these features available on our HHB burner at church. Long story
short - we turn them off and do it manually for a lot of reasons.

Care to list them? I would also be interested to know
why you church needs a CD burner. Surely you record
to HD and make CDs on a PC? Have you been squandering
the congregation's money again? :-)


Automatic scrolling on disc cutting lathes also works
in exactly this fashion.

When the masters are tapes, it can be a different story.

Then it is even simpler. Analogue tapes have leader which
the tape machine senses. The servo head has a light sensitive
cell which sees through the leader, and gives the scroll
command.

Alternatively, scrolls are marked
on tape with three strips of leader 20mm in length.
The timed location of these strips is written on the
box (Scroll at....) The cutting engineer then enters
these on the scroll command keypad, or can insert
the scroll manually when he sees the three 20mm
strips pass the playback head.

DAT and DASH have imbedded markers.


Manual marking, or entering markers from a keypad
is of course another option.

It is 100% reliable, even when all the automated stuff fails.

Cutting automation is well-established technology
and remarkably reliable. The cutting engineer has
1001 things he needs to do constantly so to be able
to leave the scrolling to automation is of great benefit.

Iain

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...

People who use PCs and CEP (now Audition) speak
about the necessity to defragment the hard disc before
the initial transcriptionfrom vinyl.

People say lots of crazy things. Lots of it traces back
to the days of 540 meg, 5400 rpm hard drives.

Could be. But you are familiar with this?

I've been using CoolEditPro/Audition for more than a decade. 12 years ago
defragging hard drives was important for recording and burning CDs. This
year its importance is a tiny fraction of that. In between hard drives
became in a practical sense, at least 10 times faster. Recording hardware
became far less critical of its operational environment.

Another big change over the years is that in 1998 most windows DAW setups
ran under Win98 on FAT-32 formatted hard drives. Starting in the early
2000s, most people switched to Windows XP and NTFS drives. NTFS does not
fragment its drives as destructively as FAT32 did. Of course, every once in
a while I find an XP system running on FAT32, because not everybody is on
the ball.

IIRC you use Audition.

It really doesn't matter what software you use. Basically, you're working
with .wav files, optical disc burners and audio interfaces, no matter what.

Otherwise, it seems the
sequencer may stop playing during a 60 min cloning to
CD if it cannot find the data fast enough.

Then there are the people who still haven't bought a
modern CD burner that knows what to do if somehow there
is a data underrun.
This doesn't seem to happen on Mac based systems
which seem a lot less prone to fragmentation.

If you believe that...

I have found that to be the case with ProTools.

I know lots of people who use Pro Tools. We all see the same basic world -
where brands of DAW software don't matter, and the physical properties of
hardware dominates.

One can
download a large project, add new elements, edit,
submix and mix intrernally, and then upload to archive,
and the disks show a very low level of fragmentation.

....just like XP/NTFS. Besides there is no cross-system standard for
reporting fragmentation. You can't compare anything that either operating
system reports.

People say that similar systems running under Windows
fair much worse. I would be interested in your findings,
Arny.

My findings are that I recommend that people defrag their drives once a
month, because it is good hygiene.

Prof workstations "look ahead" all the time
but still most studios seem to defrag at least once
a week and between projects.

Good policies, but policies with declining relevance.

Maybe belt and braces, but one doesn't want the sequencer
to grind to a halt during a live transmission:-) IME
things like this are the mark of a pro system.

Know what needs to be done, and what doesn't need to be done and when is the
sign of a pro.

they even automatically identify and
mark the individual tracks in the process.

IME, that function is controlled by the level of the
audo. If the audio is less than a certain amount, it
must be a space between tracks. It's not the most
reliable system in the world.

Actually, it is totally reliable.

Inexperience speaks!

I doubt if you do more CD mastering that I and
certainly not at a professional level.

I mastered 3 1 hour CDs today. Can you top that?

I have never seen an HHB miss a beat. If yours does
then perhaps you are not setting it up properly.

Oh spare me, Iain. :-(

Iain, in the sequence below I'm trying to make the point that using
automatic track marking works fine with master tapes but often runs into
problems when making CDs from transcribed LPs. You seem to completely miss
the point. That tells me that you can't see why there is a difference. That
tells me that you are not talking from experience.

One can set both the time that
must be detected, and also the depth of signal
attenuation. 3 secs and 50dB is a common default. You
can even set the system to update the ID on applause for concert
recordings.

I have these features available on our HHB burner at
church. Long story short - we turn them off and do it
manually for a lot of reasons.

Care to list them?

The HHB is at church and I'm at home. I'm not going to drive to church to
satisfy your idle curiosity, Iain.

I would also be interested to know
why you church needs a CD burner.

To make CDs of services. We make an audio CD and a video DVD every Sunday
morning.

Surely you record to HD and make CDs on a PC?

No, I find the CD burner to be more reliable than a PC in the hands of
amateurs.

Have you been squandering the congregation's money again? :-)

How would you know, Iain?

Automatic scrolling on disc cutting lathes also works
in exactly this fashion.

When the masters are tapes, it can be a different story.

Then it is even simpler.

More than simpler, it can be feasible. The difference is that master tapes
have far more dynamic range than raw transcriptions of LPs. Apparently you
don't know this or see how it can be relevant, Iain.

Analogue tapes have leader which
the tape machine senses. The servo head has a light
sensitive cell which sees through the leader, and gives
the scroll command.

And do raw transcriptions of LPs have anything like that?

Alternatively, scrolls are marked
on tape with three strips of leader 20mm in length.
The timed location of these strips is written on the
box (Scroll at....) The cutting engineer then enters
these on the scroll command keypad, or can insert
the scroll manually when he sees the three 20mm
strips pass the playback head.

And do raw transcriptions of LPs have anything like that?


DAT and DASH have imbedded markers.

And do raw transcriptions of LPs have anything like that?

Manual marking, or entering markers from a keypad
is of course another option.

It is 100% reliable, even when all the automated stuff
fails.

Cutting automation is well-established technology
and remarkably reliable. The cutting engineer has
1001 things he needs to do constantly so to be able
to leave the scrolling to automation is of great benefit.

Now that I annotated the differences Iain, do you see the difference between
generating track markers automatically from LPs and master tapes?

[Edward R Morris]

Hi Iain,
What CD recorder do you use that takes out LP noise?

Thanks,
Eddie

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..


Granted computers are more flexible, but the stand alone CD burners do a
credible job transcribing LP's,

Depends what you call credible. I don't call transcribing LPs without good
tic and pop management "credible".

I made a safety transcription of the new Ray Charles/Count Basie LP.
Not a click, tick or pop on four sides!

People who use PCs and CEP (now Audition) speak
about the necessity to defragment the hard disc before the
initial transcriptionfrom vinyl. Otherwise, it seems the
sequencer may stop playing during a 60 min cloning to
CD if it cannot find the data fast enough.

This doesn't seem to happen on Mac based systems
which seem a lot less prone to fragmentation.
Prof workstations "look ahead" all the time
but still most studios seem to defrag at least once
a week and between projects.


they even automatically identify and
mark the individual tracks in the process.

IME, that function is controlled by the level of the audo. If the audio is
less than a certain amount, it must be a space between tracks. It's not
the most reliable system in the world.

Actually, it is totally reliable. One can set both the time that
must be detected, and also the depth of signal attenuation.
3 secs and 50dB is a common default. You can even set the
system to update the ID on applause for concert recordings.

Automatic scrolling on disc cutting lathes also works
in exactly this fashion.

Manual marking, or entering markers from a keypad
is of course another option.

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Edward R Morris" wrote in message
.. .
Hi Iain,
What CD recorder do you use that takes out LP noise?

Thanks,
Eddie


Hi Eddie. As far as I know, no CD recorder can do that, although
there are some proprietory filter units (one made by Philips broadcast)
which were designed to plug in before the CD player. I have one of
these, and use its other facilities but not the de-click.

The best way , I think to produce a decent LP transcription is to
copy the vinyl first to hard disc, using a programme like Audition
(formerly Cool Edit Pro) There are others, Sound Forge for
example (I have seen but never used that)

During the transcription you can either jot down on paper
or insert markers on the sequencer screen (in CEP you press F8)
to indicate the location of the worse clicks and pops.

Then you go through the sequence, title by title, top and tail,
and fade to silence the end of each title. Then go though and
manually de-click the worst offenders. Some programmes have
auto de-click. The results they achieve may or may not please
use.

Prof systems use a plug in by Cedar, or something similar,
and several of the people that I know who do transcription
professionally, transcribe the vinyl wet. This gets rid of probably
65 percent of the light ticks etc.

Transcription is interesting. I do a lot of it. You can, with
care, achieve amazing results.

Hope this helps
Best regards
Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Arny wrote some interesting info about fragmentation on PCs
Thanks Arny.

Iain said
I have found that to be the case with ProTools.

I know lots of people who use Pro Tools. We all see the same basic world -
where brands of DAW software don't matter, and the physical properties of
hardware dominates.

My point was that Mac systems don't seem to get fragmented
anything like so quickly.

My findings are that I recommend that people defrag their drives once a
month, because it is good hygiene.

That makes good sense, But it is standard practice in
the mix/edit facilities in which I have worked, to defrag
the system immediately after you have finished the mix,
and backed-up your project data to archive. The system
is then clean and ready for the next operator.This means
that many systems are treated to a defrag maybe three
or more times a week.

Another major difference which may be relevant is that
programmes like Audition, when in multi-track mode,
save the data for all tracks on the same disc.

Large pro systems store two or maybe four tracks per disc
only, so that a forty-eight track system may have twelve or
even twenty-four hard discs. IIRC Studer started this with
their excellent Dyaxis work station and ProDisk did something
similar, and added removable hard discs, so that the client
could take his disc and data with him when he had finished.

This has probably come down from digital video post
production systems where for example Quantel Henry had
data spread over forty hard discs. IIRC the failure of one
of these did not greatly affect operation as material was
overlapped over the other thirty nine discs.

Know what needs to be done, and what doesn't need to be done and when is
the sign of a pro.

The chief engineer in most facilities makes decisions
of that nature. They become a part of departmental
policy and routine, like so many other customs in a
good facility, and everyone follows them to the letter.
This applies to freelancers especially. There is no room
for solo fliers, that is how catastrophes occur:-(


I doubt if you do more CD mastering that I and
certainly not at a professional level.

I mastered 3 1 hour CDs today. Can you top that?

I said at a professional level. Sorry, no cigar:-(
We probably have a different interpretation of the
term "mastering".

I have never seen an HHB miss a beat. If yours does
then perhaps you are not setting it up properly.

Oh spare me, Iain. :-(

You seem to be blaming the tools. Not the sign of
a competent craftsman.


Iain, in the sequence below I'm trying to make the point that using
automatic track marking works fine with master tapes but often runs into
problems when making CDs from transcribed LPs. You seem to completely miss
the point. That tells me that you can't see why there is a difference.
That tells me that you are not talking from experience.

I have transcribed hundreds of sides of vinyl, lacquer, and
shellac professionally, for commercial and archive clients.
Using the defaults which I stated, a threshold of -50dB ref FS
and 3 secs and you will have any trouble. You must fade
the audio in your sequencer and insert "digital leader" (silence)
between tracks.

I have these features available on our HHB burner at
church. Long story short - we turn them off and do it
manually for a lot of reasons.

Care to list them?

The HHB is at church and I'm at home. I'm not going to drive to church to
satisfy your idle curiosity, Iain.

So you can't remember? :-)

I would also be interested to know
why you church needs a CD burner.

To make CDs of services. We make an audio CD and a video DVD every Sunday
morning.

I see. May I ask why?

Surely you record to HD and make CDs on a PC?

No, I find the CD burner to be more reliable than a PC in the hands of
amateurs.

LOL:-) But you still can't manage automark ID ?
Are you not *all* amateurs at the church?
Who is the pro there?


Have you been squandering the congregation's money again? :-)

How would you know, Iain?

My sentence was in the interrogative, and used a question mark.
Didn't you notice it?

Just a thought. Does a church have a technical budget? Who
controls it? Or can you just buy what you (think) you need?
I would like to be able to do that:-)

Automatic scrolling on disc cutting lathes also works
in exactly this fashion.

When the masters are tapes, it can be a different story.

Then it is even simpler.

More than simpler, it can be feasible. The difference is that master tapes
have far more dynamic range than raw transcriptions of LPs. Apparently you
don't know this or see how it can be relevant, Iain.

Arny your comprehension skills are lamentable.
I am talking here about auto scroll on a disc cutting lathe.
Disc lathe automation was perfected in the early
1960s and is highly reliable. Compared with this,
placing simple ID markers on a CD is
simplicity itself. No self-respecting operator
scrolls a disk or marks a CD ID manually.

Analogue tapes have leader which
the tape machine senses. The servo head has a light
sensitive cell which sees through the leader, and gives
the scroll command.

And do raw transcriptions of LPs have anything like that?

See my comment above.


Alternatively, scrolls are marked
on tape with three strips of leader 20mm in length.
The timed location of these strips is written on the
box (Scroll at....) The cutting engineer then enters
these on the scroll command keypad, or can insert
the scroll manually when he sees the three 20mm
strips pass the playback head.

And do raw transcriptions of LPs have anything like that?

See my comment above.


DAT and DASH have imbedded markers.

And do raw transcriptions of LPs have anything like that?

Now you are contradicting yourself. You stated earlier I
believe that you did not transfer LP to CD direct.
It would be surprising if you cannot placed embedded
track markers in the sequencer with Audition.

Iain

[Edward R Morris]

Iain,
Thanks for your advice. Very helpful.

Eddie

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...


"Edward R Morris" wrote in message
.. .
Hi Iain,
What CD recorder do you use that takes out LP noise?

Thanks,
Eddie


Hi Eddie. As far as I know, no CD recorder can do that, although
there are some proprietory filter units (one made by Philips broadcast)
which were designed to plug in before the CD player. I have one of
these, and use its other facilities but not the de-click.

The best way , I think to produce a decent LP transcription is to
copy the vinyl first to hard disc, using a programme like Audition
(formerly Cool Edit Pro) There are others, Sound Forge for
example (I have seen but never used that)

During the transcription you can either jot down on paper
or insert markers on the sequencer screen (in CEP you press F8)
to indicate the location of the worse clicks and pops.

Then you go through the sequence, title by title, top and tail,
and fade to silence the end of each title. Then go though and
manually de-click the worst offenders. Some programmes have
auto de-click. The results they achieve may or may not please
use.

Prof systems use a plug in by Cedar, or something similar,
and several of the people that I know who do transcription
professionally, transcribe the vinyl wet. This gets rid of probably
65 percent of the light ticks etc.

Transcription is interesting. I do a lot of it. You can, with
care, achieve amazing results.

Hope this helps
Best regards
Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Edward R Morris" wrote in message
.. .
Iain,
Thanks for your advice. Very helpful.

Eddie



A pleasure. Please let us know what you choose and
how you get on with it.

Best regards
Iain

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Arny wrote some interesting info about fragmentation on
PCs Thanks Arny.

Iain said
I have found that to be the case with ProTools.

I know lots of people who use Pro Tools. We all see the
same basic world - where brands of DAW software don't
matter, and the physical properties of hardware
dominates.

My point was that Mac systems don't seem to get fragmented
anything like so quickly.

There's no evidence to suppor that contention.

My findings are that I recommend that people defrag
their drives once a month, because it is good hygiene.

That makes good sense, But it is standard practice in
the mix/edit facilities in which I have worked, to defrag
the system immediately after you have finished the mix,
and backed-up your project data to archive. The system
is then clean and ready for the next operator.This means
that many systems are treated to a defrag maybe three
or more times a week.

Another major difference which may be relevant is that
programmes like Audition, when in multi-track mode,
save the data for all tracks on the same disc.

Wrong on several counts.

Large pro systems store two or maybe four tracks per disc
only, so that a forty-eight track system may have twelve
or even twenty-four hard discs.

Entirely feasible with Audition, if if totally unecessary.

IIRC Studer started this
with their excellent Dyaxis work station and ProDisk did
something similar, and added removable hard discs, so
that the client could take his disc and data with him
when he had finished.

Yes, removing 12 or 24 hard disks and taking them with you sounds like the
peak of convenience. Not!!!

I just pulled a gig with my Microtrak. The media was CF, so I could probably
carry a thousand of them in my jacket if I wanted to. Heck, the whole
recorder fits in my pocket.

This has probably come down from digital video post
production systems where for example Quantel Henry had
data spread over forty hard discs. IIRC the failure of
one of these did not greatly affect operation as material was
overlapped over the other thirty nine discs.

In these modern days we use RAID. But, rarely for portable disks.

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Arny wrote some interesting info about fragmentation on
PCs Thanks Arny.

Iain said
I have found that to be the case with ProTools.

I know lots of people who use Pro Tools. We all see the
same basic world - where brands of DAW software don't
matter, and the physical properties of hardware
dominates.

My point was that Mac systems don't seem to get fragmented
anything like so quickly.

There's no evidence to suppor that contention.

I don't know if it is true or not but I just read on another newsgroup
that mac OSX systems beyond a certain revision level include built in
file de-fragmentation in the OS. The explanation was that when a
fragmented file is opened, the OS automatically writes out a new
de-fragmented version. An obvious problem with this scheme is that the
file would have to have been previously opened and closed so that the
de-fragmenting activity wouldn't cause problems when an audio file is
opened for a critical application.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Arny Krueger]

"John Byrns" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

My point was that Mac systems don't seem to get
fragmented anything like so quickly.

There's no evidence to suppor that contention.

I don't know if it is true or not but I just read on
another newsgroup that mac OSX systems beyond a certain
revision level include built in file de-fragmentation in
the OS.

There are some limitations to that sort of a process.

Furthermore, such claims as have been made in this area relate to a fairly
recent release of the Mac OS, while Iain claimed that it was true for any
verison of the Mac OS.

he explanation was that when a fragmented file
is opened, the OS automatically writes out a new
de-fragmented version.

This would cause a horrific I/O workload, if actually it were actually
implemented. Re-writing an entire file generates a ton of reads and writes
unless the file is quite small.

Furthermore the usual case is that only fairly small files can be written
without fragmentation because an active disk quickly runs out of contigious
areas that are large enough to hold an entire file.

An obvious problem with this
scheme is that the file would have to have been
previously opened and closed so that the de-fragmenting
activity wouldn't cause problems when an audio file is
opened for a critical application.


Regards,

John Byrns

[Andre Jute]

On Jan 21, 6:44 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:



"Iain Churches" wrote in message
hti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Arny wrote some interesting info about fragmentation on
PCs Thanks Arny.

Iain said
I have found that to be the case with ProTools.

I know lots of people who use Pro Tools. We all see the
same basic world - where brands of DAW software don't
matter, and the physical properties of hardware
dominates.

My point was that Mac systems don't seem to get fragmented
anything like so quickly.

There's no evidence to suppor that contention.

I don't know if it is true or not but I just read on another newsgroup
that mac OSX systems beyond a certain revision level include built in
file de-fragmentation in the OS. The explanation was that when a
fragmented file is opened, the OS automatically writes out a new
de-fragmented version.

Sure, it's true, but it applies only to small files, useful for
literary works and perhaps pop music but not much chop for big stuff
like movies or graphic design.

An obvious problem with this scheme is that the
file would have to have been previously opened and closed so that the
de-fragmenting activity wouldn't cause problems when an audio file is
opened for a critical application.

Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

In any event, with OS X 5, Apple gives you Time Machine, which makes
backups that permit you to step back through time to the total storage
limit of your external hard disk, and to restore your operating hard
disk to any point on the saved timeline.

I add a wrinkle to Time Machine; I have long done the same thing under
earlier OS.

I partition my hard disk into four parts. The first contains the
currently proven operating system and its ancillary files, plus proven
everyday applications with all their support files. The second
contains either the previous OS in case I want to go back to it or the
next OS while I'm still discovering if works, temporary software,
software on trial and **** I suspect was incompetently written, and so
on, anything that might crash and take a day's work with it. The third
contains my permanent store of finished work; none of the files on
this partition is ever changed; new material may be transferred onto
this partition and obsolete material gets taken off to DVD once a
year. The fourth partition is my current work disk and contains all my
files of current and open projects, correspondence and so on. This
arrangement prevents cross-contamination and being left without a
startup system when something crashes.

If any partition gets corrupted, it is a small job to reformat only
that partition and to restore it from the backup external hard disk. I
also back up daily to rewritable CDs and weekly to permanent storage.

It is years since I last ran a defragger or disk optimizer as some are
called; with my arrangement it is faster -- an hour or two against
*days* to defrag and optimize a big hard disk -- to simply trash the
partition, reformat, and restore from the backup. I do it to my
current work partition every time I notice my Mac slowing down, about
twice a year.

If you have enough space on your partitions, you can defrag by simply
dragging all the folders in one partititon to another, then trash the
originals *and empty the Trash*, then drag your folders back, then
trash the temporary folders on the "wrong" partition. In such a drag
and drop to an empty partition, every file is written as a single
block.

I imagine IT managers love defragges because it fills the time and
makes them look busy and important, but a big external hard disk is
cheap, and drag and drop and trash and drag and drop back is quick and
secure.

Andre Jute
Good habits = data security

PS WRT the original question in this thread, about standalone CD
recorders, the OP doesn't need anything that rare, now. He can just
use his DVD recorder. Most of them have audio socketry and will record
on CDs as well.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"John Byrns" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

My point was that Mac systems don't seem to get
fragmented anything like so quickly.

There's no evidence to suppor that contention.

I don't know if it is true or not but I just read on
another newsgroup that mac OSX systems beyond a certain
revision level include built in file de-fragmentation in
the OS.

There are some limitations to that sort of a process.

Furthermore, such claims as have been made in this area relate to a fairly
recent release of the Mac OS, while Iain claimed that it was true for any
verison of the Mac OS.

No Arny. Please do *not* put your own slanted interpretation onto
what I wrote. I did not say that earlier versions of MacOS had inbuilt
defrag. What I *did* say is that disks runnikng under the Mac OS
seem to suffer less from fragmentation.

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Arny wrote some interesting info about fragmentation on
PCs Thanks Arny.

Iain said
I have found that to be the case with ProTools.

I know lots of people who use Pro Tools. We all see the
same basic world - where brands of DAW software don't
matter, and the physical properties of hardware
dominates.

My point was that Mac systems don't seem to get fragmented
anything like so quickly.

There's no evidence to suppor that contention.

I don't know if it is true or not but I just read on another newsgroup
that mac OSX systems beyond a certain revision level include built in
file de-fragmentation in the OS. The explanation was that when a
fragmented file is opened, the OS automatically writes out a new
de-fragmented version. An obvious problem with this scheme is that the
file would have to have been previously opened and closed so that the
de-fragmenting activity wouldn't cause problems when an audio file is
opened for a critical application.


Yes. X is pretty advancd.

Many audio workstation maufacturers choose Mac
for the front end, with dedicated and separate hard disks
(each with its own processor) so that only the sequencer info is
carried on the Mac itself, with the work-station processors
doing the rest of the chores.Things like time compression and
pitch shifting work a lot faster on a Mac based system.

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Arny wrote some interesting info about fragmentation on
PCs Thanks Arny.

Iain said
I have found that to be the case with ProTools.

I know lots of people who use Pro Tools. We all see the
same basic world - where brands of DAW software don't
matter, and the physical properties of hardware
dominates.

My point was that Mac systems don't seem to get fragmented
anything like so quickly.

There's no evidence to suppor that contention.

Indeed there is clear evidence, from people whio use
Mac workstations professionally on a daily basis.

My findings are that I recommend that people defrag
their drives once a month, because it is good hygiene.

That makes good sense, But it is standard practice in
the mix/edit facilities in which I have worked, to defrag
the system immediately after you have finished the mix,
and backed-up your project data to archive. The system
is then clean and ready for the next operator.This means
that many systems are treated to a defrag maybe three
or more times a week.

Another major difference which may be relevant is that
programmes like Audition, when in multi-track mode,
save the data for all tracks on the same disc.

Wrong on several counts.

Large pro systems store two or maybe four tracks per disc
only, so that a forty-eight track system may have twelve
or even twenty-four hard discs.

Entirely feasible with Audition, if if totally unecessary.

Belt and braces. If you lose your Sunday service, it probably
does not matter too much. It a client loses his 2 hour
documentary scheduled for broadcast the following weekend,
that *is* of considerable concern.

IIRC Studer started this
with their excellent Dyaxis work station and ProDisk did
something similar, and added removable hard discs, so
that the client could take his disc and data with him
when he had finished.

Yes, removing 12 or 24 hard disks and taking them with you sounds like the
peak of convenience. Not!!!

It takes just a couple of minutes. The disks slide in and
out of their frames on runners. You spin them down and
the assisitant pulls them out, puts them into their
transportation cases, and takes them down to the
waiting taxi.

Iain