Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Fact or Myth? Black CDs

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 5:13:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I recently read a report claiming that the quality of sound on a cd
could be vastly improved by rerecording the cd onto a black color cd
blank. The thesis, as I understood it, was that the black color is
easier for the laser to read than standard white or silver colors.

The report involved extensive comparison testing. Unfortunately, I've
lost the link to the report.

Has anyone had any experience with this or tested the proposition?

Second question, anybody have any experience with the Marantz CDR 300
portable cd recorder? I'm considering purchasing to replace my
mini-disc, which I use at rehearsals. I've heard the Marantz limiter
may reduce the sound quality noticeably. Mini-discs compress too much
it seems, but I like the idea of having a limiter if it really works.

Thanks for any help you can give.
TCanyon3

More about : fact myth black cds

Anonymous
November 10, 2004 8:30:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"tcanyon3" <stehrlichman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:466df939.0411101413.530e59a7@posting.google.com

> I recently read a report claiming that the quality of sound on a cd
> could be vastly improved by rerecording the cd onto a black color cd
> blank. The thesis, as I understood it, was that the black color is
> easier for the laser to read than standard white or silver colors.

Some friends of mine have reported that black blanks produce valid digital
information just like the regular clear/silver kind. Fari enough.

Your challenge is to explain how one improves on the bit-perfect performance
we already obtain from clear/sliver or clear/gold blanks.

> The report involved extensive comparison testing. Unfortunately, I've
> lost the link to the report.

It has to be science fiction because extensive comparison testing shows that
we already obtain the bit-perfect performance from clear/sliver or
clear/gold blanks.


> Has anyone had any experience with this or tested the proposition?

The propopsition that is already thoroughly tested is that clear/sliver or
clear/gold blanks already provide bit-perfect performance.

> Second question, anybody have any experience with the Marantz CDR 300
> portable cd recorder? I'm considering purchasing to replace my
> mini-disc, which I use at rehearsals. I've heard the Marantz limiter
> may reduce the sound quality noticeably. Mini-discs compress too much
> it seems, but I like the idea of having a limiter if it really works.

Portable CD recorders seem like terribly old-fashioned approaches given that
we already have portable hard-drive based recorders.
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 9:04:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I believe the fact is they are inferior.... less reliable on older cd
players. I just had a customer bring me one which was unreadable on his
player, after burning a copy with my Plextor drives, on a normal "silver" cd
he had no problem reading it on the same player.

Rgds:
Eric

"tcanyon3" <stehrlichman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:466df939.0411101413.530e59a7@posting.google.com...
> I recently read a report claiming that the quality of sound on a cd
> could be vastly improved by rerecording the cd onto a black color cd
> blank. The thesis, as I understood it, was that the black color is
> easier for the laser to read than standard white or silver colors.
>
> The report involved extensive comparison testing. Unfortunately, I've
> lost the link to the report.
>
> Has anyone had any experience with this or tested the proposition?
>
> Second question, anybody have any experience with the Marantz CDR 300
> portable cd recorder? I'm considering purchasing to replace my
> mini-disc, which I use at rehearsals. I've heard the Marantz limiter
> may reduce the sound quality noticeably. Mini-discs compress too much
> it seems, but I like the idea of having a limiter if it really works.
>
> Thanks for any help you can give.
> TCanyon3
Related resources
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 9:44:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

tcanyon3 <stehrlichman@comcast.net> wrote:
>I recently read a report claiming that the quality of sound on a cd
>could be vastly improved by rerecording the cd onto a black color cd
>blank. The thesis, as I understood it, was that the black color is
>easier for the laser to read than standard white or silver colors.

The laser doesn't read that anyway. What is black is only the plastic
substrate. And it's only black at visible light wavelengths anyway;
it is transparent to infrared, which is all the player cares about.

>The report involved extensive comparison testing. Unfortunately, I've
>lost the link to the report.

If you find Fermat's theorem along with it, let me know.

>Has anyone had any experience with this or tested the proposition?

No, but it's easy enough to check error rates. You may find that with
a given drive and write speed, that the black CDs give you the best
error rate. You may not.

>Second question, anybody have any experience with the Marantz CDR 300
>portable cd recorder? I'm considering purchasing to replace my
>mini-disc, which I use at rehearsals. I've heard the Marantz limiter
>may reduce the sound quality noticeably. Mini-discs compress too much
>it seems, but I like the idea of having a limiter if it really works.

Limiters all reduce quality. They strip off the top of waveforms. That
is what they are there for. 16 bits is a whole lot of dynamic range. Do
not be afraid to use it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 10:24:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> tcanyon3 <stehrlichman@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>I recently read a report claiming that the quality of sound on a cd
>>could be vastly improved by rerecording the cd onto a black color cd
>>blank. The thesis, as I understood it, was that the black color is
>>easier for the laser to read than standard white or silver colors.
>
>
> The laser doesn't read that anyway. What is black is only the plastic
> substrate. And it's only black at visible light wavelengths anyway;
> it is transparent to infrared, which is all the player cares about.
>
>
>>The report involved extensive comparison testing. Unfortunately, I've
>>lost the link to the report.
>
>
> If you find Fermat's theorem along with it, let me know.

That's actually a bit more likely. Fetmat's last theorem was actually
proved several years ago.

>
>
>>Has anyone had any experience with this or tested the proposition?
>
>
> No, but it's easy enough to check error rates. You may find that with
> a given drive and write speed, that the black CDs give you the best
> error rate. You may not.
>
>
>>Second question, anybody have any experience with the Marantz CDR 300
>>portable cd recorder? I'm considering purchasing to replace my
>>mini-disc, which I use at rehearsals. I've heard the Marantz limiter
>>may reduce the sound quality noticeably. Mini-discs compress too much
>>it seems, but I like the idea of having a limiter if it really works.
>
>
> Limiters all reduce quality. They strip off the top of waveforms. That
> is what they are there for. 16 bits is a whole lot of dynamic range. Do
> not be afraid to use it.
> --scott
>
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 2:27:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:Jbmdna1exbzmCw_cRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
> Portable CD recorders seem like terribly old-fashioned approaches given
> that we already have portable hard-drive based recorders.

Portable CD recorders are real handy for when you want to hand off the
recording immediately upon completion. Band rehearsals, church recitals,
....
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 8:31:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:24:10 -0500, Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> tcanyon3 <stehrlichman@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I recently read a report claiming that the quality of sound on a cd
>>>could be vastly improved by rerecording the cd onto a black color cd
>>>blank. The thesis, as I understood it, was that the black color is
>>>easier for the laser to read than standard white or silver colors.
>>
>>
>> The laser doesn't read that anyway. What is black is only the plastic
>> substrate. And it's only black at visible light wavelengths anyway;
>> it is transparent to infrared, which is all the player cares about.
>>
>>
>>>The report involved extensive comparison testing. Unfortunately, I've
>>>lost the link to the report.
>>
>>
>> If you find Fermat's theorem along with it, let me know.
>
>That's actually a bit more likely. Fetmat's last theorem was actually
>proved several years ago.

Was that FETMAT's last theorem, or FERMAT's last theorem? If
Fermat's, is it an elegant and thus rather small proof, but still too
large to write into the margin of a book? Of course, what
mathematicians were originally looking for was the proof Fermat had in
mind, but it got to the point where any proof of it is considered a
large accomplishment, and there's surely been much speculation whether
Fermat had a correct proof, or a faulty proof he only though was
correct, or what.

BTW (OOTC), for the lowdown on CDR color (and a site that fits
within the margin of this Internet), check out this site:
http://cdrfaq.org
In fact, the very question is answered here:
http://cdrfaq.org/faq07.html#S7-24
-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 9:34:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Walter Harley" <walterh@cafewalterNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:cN-dnR24Z4zTiQ7cRVn-iQ@speakeasy.net
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:Jbmdna1exbzmCw_cRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
>> Portable CD recorders seem like terribly old-fashioned approaches
>> given that we already have portable hard-drive based recorders.
>
> Portable CD recorders are real handy for when you want to hand off the
> recording immediately upon completion. Band rehearsals, church
> recitals, ...

OK, CD recorders are high on instant gratification, but their recorded
product is low in terms of professional quality. They are also limited by
the recording capacity of their media. They are the "point-and-shoot"
cameras of the audio world. I've always used a SLR.
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 4:03:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Walter Harley <walterh@cafewalterNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>news:Jbmdna1exbzmCw_cRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
>> Portable CD recorders seem like terribly old-fashioned approaches given
>> that we already have portable hard-drive based recorders.
>
>Portable CD recorders are real handy for when you want to hand off the
>recording immediately upon completion. Band rehearsals, church recitals,
>...

Even orchestral sessions where you want a copy to hand to the concertmaster
to take home in preparation for editing.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 6:03:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 05:31:01 GMT, Ben Bradley
<ben_nospam_bradley@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> Was that FETMAT's last theorem, or FERMAT's last theorem? If
> Fermat's, is it an elegant and thus rather small proof, but still too
> large to write into the margin of a book? Of course, what
> mathematicians were originally looking for was the proof Fermat had in
> mind, but it got to the point where any proof of it is considered a
> large accomplishment, and there's surely been much speculation whether
> Fermat had a correct proof, or a faulty proof he only though was
> correct, or what.
>

The proof required a good bit of maths that weren't invented when Fermat
was around, plus it had to be published twice because an error occurred
in the first version.

Nowadays, they suppose that Fermat thought he had an proof, but later
found a counterexample.
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 6:48:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 2004-11-10 14:13:34 -0800, stehrlichman@comcast.net (tcanyon3) said:

> I recently read a report claiming that the quality of sound on a cd
> could be vastly improved by rerecording the cd onto a black color cd
> blank. The thesis, as I understood it, was that the black color is
> easier for the laser to read than standard white or silver colors.
>
> The report involved extensive comparison testing. Unfortunately, I've
> lost the link to the report.
>
> Has anyone had any experience with this or tested the proposition?

I dunno but they look cool.

>
> Second question, anybody have any experience with the Marantz CDR 300
> portable cd recorder? I'm considering purchasing to replace my
> mini-disc, which I use at rehearsals. I've heard the Marantz limiter
> may reduce the sound quality noticeably. Mini-discs compress too much
> it seems, but I like the idea of having a limiter if it really works.

I can't speak to highly of Marantz recently. Had a standalone burner
fail and they're flat out denying that they ever made such a product. I
know they either just got bought out or merged with someone but that
was rediculous. It's probably just over year old. YMMV.

>
> Thanks for any help you can give.
> TCanyon3


cheers

garrett
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 7:22:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

> OK, CD recorders are high on instant gratification, but their recorded
> product is low in terms of professional quality.

Wait, you doubleblinded that? 24 bit 44.1 isn't "pro" enough? Need
192KHz or something? <g>

--
ha
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 7:22:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1gn2uew.he4s241sme4q5N%walkinay@thegrid.net
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> OK, CD recorders are high on instant gratification, but their
>> recorded product is low in terms of professional quality.
>
> Wait, you doubleblinded that? 24 bit 44.1 isn't "pro" enough? Need
> 192KHz or something? <g>

Seriously now Hank, what do you think makes your work product more
*professional quality* - is it the skill and care you put into it, or the
*magnificient* gigahertz sample rate equipment you do it with?
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 9:27:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:Q8SdnejP_qOL0w7cRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
> "Walter Harley" <walterh@cafewalterNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:cN-dnR24Z4zTiQ7cRVn-iQ@speakeasy.net
> > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> > news:Jbmdna1exbzmCw_cRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
> >> Portable CD recorders seem like terribly old-fashioned approaches
> >> given that we already have portable hard-drive based recorders.
> >
> > Portable CD recorders are real handy for when you want to hand off the
> > recording immediately upon completion. Band rehearsals, church
> > recitals, ...
>
> OK, CD recorders are high on instant gratification, but their recorded
> product is low in terms of professional quality.

Low in terms of professional quality? But I thought that 16-bit 44.1kHz
recordings were perfect, or at least of sufficient technical quality that no
higher bit depth or sample rate would ever be needed.

What have you done with Arny?

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 9:27:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:FaOkd.7877$7i4.5491@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:Q8SdnejP_qOL0w7cRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
>> "Walter Harley" <walterh@cafewalterNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
>> news:cN-dnR24Z4zTiQ7cRVn-iQ@speakeasy.net
>>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Jbmdna1exbzmCw_cRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
>>>> Portable CD recorders seem like terribly old-fashioned approaches
>>>> given that we already have portable hard-drive based recorders.
>>>
>>> Portable CD recorders are real handy for when you want to hand off
>>> the recording immediately upon completion. Band rehearsals, church
>>> recitals, ...
>>
>> OK, CD recorders are high on instant gratification, but their
>> recorded product is low in terms of professional quality.
>
> Low in terms of professional quality? But I thought that 16-bit
> 44.1kHz recordings were perfect, or at least of sufficient technical
> quality that no higher bit depth or sample rate would ever be needed.

Seriously now Paul, what do you think makes your work product more
*professional quality* - is it the skill and care you put into it, or the
*magnificient* gigahertz sample rate equipment you do it with?

> What have you done with Arny?

He's the same guy he always was - who sees audio professionalism as being
more than just acquiring the latest-greatest equipment.
Anonymous
November 12, 2004 10:14:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:JqmdnaQLwq1xUw7cRVn-iA@comcast.com...

> >> OK, CD recorders are high on instant gratification, but their
> >> recorded product is low in terms of professional quality.
> >
> > Low in terms of professional quality? But I thought that 16-bit
> > 44.1kHz recordings were perfect, or at least of sufficient technical
> > quality that no higher bit depth or sample rate would ever be needed.
>
> Seriously now Paul, what do you think makes your work product more
> *professional quality* - is it the skill and care you put into it, or the
> *magnificient* gigahertz sample rate equipment you do it with?
>
> > What have you done with Arny?
>
> He's the same guy he always was - who sees audio professionalism as being
> more than just acquiring the latest-greatest equipment.

And I wholeheartedly agree. My point was that you've described 16-bit
44.1kHz recordings as perfectly adequate for music recording, but you just
put down CD recorders as "low in terms of professional quality". Assuming
equal-quality A/D converters, there's no reason they wouldn't be as good as
any other 16/44.1 recording.

Hey, the last remote session I did was direct to 16-bit DAT, and it sounded
very nice. My ears tell me 24-bit sounds somewhat better, and if my 24-bit
gear was more portable I'd have taken it, but it ain't, so I didn't. What I
did take along was a *cassette* deck -- a Nakamichi, but still a lowly
cassette. I did that because the musicians were on a very tight deadline,
and needed something from which they could make editing decisions. At the
end of the session I handed them a couple of cassettes, they got the info to
me in two days, I did the editing at home, and we were putting out CDs in a
week, which was exactly what we needed to do. If I'd had a stand-along CD
recorder, I'd have used that, so they could have better quality for making
those edit decisions.

Horses for courses.

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
November 12, 2004 12:07:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:vpZkd.887635$Gx4.204765@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:JqmdnaQLwq1xUw7cRVn-iA@comcast.com...
>
>>>> OK, CD recorders are high on instant gratification, but their
>>>> recorded product is low in terms of professional quality.
>>>
>>> Low in terms of professional quality? But I thought that 16-bit
>>> 44.1kHz recordings were perfect, or at least of sufficient technical
>>> quality that no higher bit depth or sample rate would ever be
>>> needed.
>>
>> Seriously now Paul, what do you think makes your work product more
>> *professional quality* - is it the skill and care you put into it,
>> or the *magnificient* gigahertz sample rate equipment you do it with?
>>
>>> What have you done with Arny?
>>
>> He's the same guy he always was - who sees audio professionalism as
>> being more than just acquiring the latest-greatest equipment.
>
> And I wholeheartedly agree. My point was that you've described 16-bit
> 44.1kHz recordings as perfectly adequate for music recording,

Actually, if you read the fine print, I've described 16 bit 44.1 as a
perfectly adequate distribution medium. For years I've been advocating 32/44
for tracking because of the desirability of maintaining lots of headroom.

>but you just put down CD recorders as "low in terms of professional
>quality".

But not because of the digital format. My gripe is with the idea that you
can burn a CD from what amounts to being a tracking session and give it to
an end-user as a professional end-product.

> Assuming equal-quality A/D converters, there's no reason they
> wouldn't be as good as any other 16/44.1 recording.

I do location recording of business presentations in 16/44 and even 192 Kb
MP3, but that's for voice. But I still edit and mix before delivering the
work product.

> Hey, the last remote session I did was direct to 16-bit DAT, and it
> sounded very nice. My ears tell me 24-bit sounds somewhat better, and
> if my 24-bit gear was more portable I'd have taken it, but it ain't,
> so I didn't.

Been there, done that.

>What I did take along was a *cassette* deck -- a
> Nakamichi, but still a lowly cassette. I did that because the
> musicians were on a very tight deadline, and needed something from
> which they could make editing decisions. At the end of the session I
> handed them a couple of cassettes, they got the info to me in two
> days, I did the editing at home, and we were putting out CDs in a
> week, which was exactly what we needed to do.

I have a hard time taking the cassette format very seriously. I make two a
week for my church, but don't think I haven't tried to raise their
consciousness. This is the same group that are using a stage monitor I made
out of 5 door speakers from a Jeep Liberty because they can't bring
themselves to tell me to go out and buy something decent, no matter how hard
or how often I beg. Actually, that is the better sounding monitor of the two
they have, as the other one is a decades-old Sunn with piezo tweeter. BTW,
their budget is running a surplus and they just just bought 4 $1500+ Canon
XGA video projectors but that is a different committee. I won that one!

> If I'd had a
> stand-along CD recorder, I'd have used that, so they could have
> better quality for making those edit decisions.

Nomad Jukebox 3 portable hard drive player/recorders with factory warranty
are currently closing for $139 on eBay.
Anonymous
November 12, 2004 7:42:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:p fadnaDay4CaWQncRVn-vg@comcast.com...

> > If I'd had a
> > stand-alone CD recorder, I'd have used that, so they could have
> > better quality for making those edit decisions.
>
> Nomad Jukebox 3 portable hard drive player/recorders with factory
warranty
> are currently closing for $139 on eBay.

Thanks for the tip, and I'll check them out, but that still means
downloading the material into the computer before I can burn CDs. Having an
on-location recorder means I can give them the discs or cassettes at the end
of the session. In this case, when we were under the gun, that made a lot of
difference. So I chose to give them a cassette today, instead of a disc
tomorrow. But if I'd had a disc today, all the better.

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
November 12, 2004 7:42:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:hK5ld.11411$7i4.1294@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net

> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:p fadnaDay4CaWQncRVn-vg@comcast.com...

>>> If I'd had a
>>> stand-alone CD recorder, I'd have used that, so they could have
>>> better quality for making those edit decisions.

>> Nomad Jukebox 3 portable hard drive player/recorders with factory
> warranty are currently closing for $139 on eBay.

> Thanks for the tip, and I'll check them out, but that still means
> downloading the material into the computer before I can burn CDs.

Yes, but you can transfer from the NJB3 to a computer over Firewire in an
small fraction of recorded time. Which fraction depends on the format you
record in.

I just uploaded an approx. 16 minute 44/16 wave file in 32 seconds from
click-the-file to *upload complete*.

That would be about 2 minutes of transfer time per recorded hour, right?

Right before that I uploaded over 6 hours of 192 Kbit MP3 from a seminar, in
about 2 minutes.

> Having an on-location recorder means I can give them the discs or
> cassettes at the end of the session.

Carry a laptop with some editing and burning software, and deliver CDs with
more than a little professional flourish.

>In this case, when we were under
> the gun, that made a lot of difference. So I chose to give them a
> cassette today, instead of a disc tomorrow.

IME, I within the hour I can transfer quite a bit of audio to a computer
even a laptop, do some simple editing and level-setting, and burn a CD that
I'm even a little proud of.

If time is of the essence and your market is people who are just a little
computer-savvy, files you upload and edit can be quickly distributed via USB
2.0 keychains. It's a ton faster than burning CDs.

> But if I'd had a disc today, all the better.

If people want to just listen to what they just played, the NJB3 can handle
that quite nicely too, thank you.

NJB3 recorded files have names that directly relate to the date and time, so
its easy to keep a large number of takes straight.
Anonymous
November 12, 2004 8:06:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

> My gripe is with the idea that you
> can burn a CD from what amounts to being a tracking session and give it to
> an end-user as a professional end-product.

Used to do that fairly often using a Studer two-track. Obviously, the
master tape wasn't the end product, but it was all that was needed for
source material from which to beget consumables.

Nowdays people don't have to learn to mix becuase that's where they're
going to get to "fix" it.

--
ha
Anonymous
November 12, 2004 9:24:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:Ja2dnZgP1JOEcgncRVn-gA@comcast.com...

> Yes, but you can transfer from the NJB3 to a computer over Firewire in an
> small fraction of recorded time. Which fraction depends on the format you
> record in.
>
> I just uploaded an approx. 16 minute 44/16 wave file in 32 seconds from
> click-the-file to *upload complete*.
>
> That would be about 2 minutes of transfer time per recorded hour, right?
>
> Right before that I uploaded over 6 hours of 192 Kbit MP3 from a seminar,
in
> about 2 minutes.
>
> > Having an on-location recorder means I can give them the discs or
> > cassettes at the end of the session.
>
> Carry a laptop with some editing and burning software, and deliver CDs
with
> more than a little professional flourish.

As somebody said (I think it was you), professional flourish has more to do
with the care you take in the recording than the gear you use. If I owned a
laptop I might do just what you say, but I don't, and this group of clients
made the deliberate decision to go direct to 2-track, as many of my clients
do. We got a thoroughly professional recording out of it. I got the mix
right the first time (because that was the only choice).

> > But if I'd had a disc today, all the better.
>
> If people want to just listen to what they just played, the NJB3 can
handle
> that quite nicely too, thank you.

Read my post again: they spent a couple of days deciding which takes thay
wanted, where they wanted edits, etc.. I taught them how to do edit
sheets -- these are musicians with minimal computer savvy, I assure you. At
the end of the process, they gave me the edit sheets and I did the cutting.
The technology we used worked just fine, would have worked even better with
CD-Rs as the raw-take distribution medium. Sometimes simple is good.

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
November 12, 2004 9:39:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:Jbmdna1exbzmCw_cRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
> Your challenge is to explain how one improves on the bit-perfect
performance
> we already obtain from clear/sliver or clear/gold blanks.

> It has to be science fiction because extensive comparison testing shows
that
> we already obtain the bit-perfect performance from clear/sliver or
> clear/gold blanks.

> The propopsition that is already thoroughly tested is that clear/sliver
or
> clear/gold blanks already provide bit-perfect performance.

Actually I've not seen many bit perfect CD's *BEFORE* error correction. (no
arguments about the benefits of lower "correctable" errors please!)
The real challenge is to show that black CD's have a lower C1 error count
than other types of CD's.
They don't in my limited experience of them.

TonyP.
Anonymous
November 12, 2004 9:47:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cn09h1$rhd$1@panix2.panix.com...
> Walter Harley <walterh@cafewalterNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> >Portable CD recorders are real handy for when you want to hand off the
> >recording immediately upon completion. Band rehearsals, church recitals,

> Even orchestral sessions where you want a copy to hand to the
concertmaster
> to take home in preparation for editing.

I've recorded concerts to hard disk and burned a CDR to give to the artist
before he has finished packing his equipment, on many occasions.
Of course he only gets the FOH mix until I've mixed/edited the multi-track,
but with a stand alone CD recorder there is no multi-track.

TonyP.
Anonymous
November 12, 2004 10:07:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ben Bradley" <ben_nospam_bradley@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:fit5p0pavml16e1ct2cb4egied1ppe73o6@4ax.com...
> BTW (OOTC), for the lowdown on CDR color (and a site that fits
> within the margin of this Internet), check out this site:
> http://cdrfaq.org
> In fact, the very question is answered here:
> http://cdrfaq.org/faq07.html#S7-24

Which of course is no answer at all, just further unsupported conjecture
(see last paragraph).

TonyP.
Anonymous
November 13, 2004 6:17:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I need a drink!

"Ben Bradley" <ben_nospam_bradley@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:fit5p0pavml16e1ct2cb4egied1ppe73o6@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:24:10 -0500, Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >
> >> tcanyon3 <stehrlichman@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>I recently read a report claiming that the quality of sound on a cd
> >>>could be vastly improved by rerecording the cd onto a black color cd
> >>>blank. The thesis, as I understood it, was that the black color is
> >>>easier for the laser to read than standard white or silver colors.
> >>
> >>
> >> The laser doesn't read that anyway. What is black is only the plastic
> >> substrate. And it's only black at visible light wavelengths anyway;
> >> it is transparent to infrared, which is all the player cares about.
> >>
> >>
> >>>The report involved extensive comparison testing. Unfortunately, I've
> >>>lost the link to the report.
> >>
> >>
> >> If you find Fermat's theorem along with it, let me know.
> >
> >That's actually a bit more likely. Fetmat's last theorem was actually
> >proved several years ago.
>
> Was that FETMAT's last theorem, or FERMAT's last theorem? If
> Fermat's, is it an elegant and thus rather small proof, but still too
> large to write into the margin of a book? Of course, what
> mathematicians were originally looking for was the proof Fermat had in
> mind, but it got to the point where any proof of it is considered a
> large accomplishment, and there's surely been much speculation whether
> Fermat had a correct proof, or a faulty proof he only though was
> correct, or what.
>
> BTW (OOTC), for the lowdown on CDR color (and a site that fits
> within the margin of this Internet), check out this site:
> http://cdrfaq.org
> In fact, the very question is answered here:
> http://cdrfaq.org/faq07.html#S7-24
> -----
> http://mindspring.com/~benbradley
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 6:42:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1gn2uew.he4s241sme4q5N%walkinay@thegrid.net...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> OK, CD recorders are high on instant gratification, but their recorded
>> product is low in terms of professional quality.
>
> Wait, you doubleblinded that? 24 bit 44.1 isn't "pro" enough? Need
> 192KHz or something? <g>


Where did you find that 24 bit CD recorder ?

geoff
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 6:43:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
news:41946a94$0$25116$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:cn09h1$rhd$1@panix2.panix.com...
>> Walter Harley <walterh@cafewalterNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>> >Portable CD recorders are real handy for when you want to hand off the
>> >recording immediately upon completion. Band rehearsals, church
>> >recitals,
>
>> Even orchestral sessions where you want a copy to hand to the
> concertmaster
>> to take home in preparation for editing.
>
> I've recorded concerts to hard disk and burned a CDR to give to the artist
> before he has finished packing his equipment, on many occasions.
> Of course he only gets the FOH mix until I've mixed/edited the
> multi-track,
> but with a stand alone CD recorder there is no multi-track.


There is also no margin for error in the headroom department.

geoff
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 6:47:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>
> Actually, if you read the fine print, I've described 16 bit 44.1 as a
> perfectly adequate distribution medium. For years I've been advocating
> 32/44 for tracking because of the desirability of maintaining lots of
> headroom.

If you ahve a bunch of 32 bit files then you're gunna need a 64 bit
processing environemt. Keep the tracking files at 24 and keep the 32 (or
whatever) relating to the processing workspace.

>>but you just put down CD recorders as "low in terms of professional
>>quality".

They are fine, as is DAT, but suufer from teh for-mentioned headroom'
syndrome. At at 16 bit you really do feel the inclination to try and
maximised the bits you have to work with.

geoff
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 6:47:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
news:RHzld.1234$3U4.106005@news02.tsnz.net
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Actually, if you read the fine print, I've described 16 bit 44.1 as a
>> perfectly adequate distribution medium. For years I've been
>> advocating 32/44 for tracking because of the desirability of
>> maintaining lots of headroom.
>
> If you ahve a bunch of 32 bit files then you're gunna need a 64 bit
> processing environemt.

Not if its 32 bit floating point.
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 6:49:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<Garrett Cox> wrote in message news:2004111115482216807%

> I can't speak to highly of Marantz recently. Had a standalone burner fail
> and they're flat out denying that they ever made such a product. I know
> they either just got bought out or merged with someone but that was
> rediculous. It's probably just over year old. YMMV.

Where I work has a warehouse full of them. It is, however, Marantz Pro,
which the average consumer-orientated support person may not even know
exists.

geoff
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 12:06:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

stehrlichman@comcast.net (tcanyon3) wrote in message news:<466df939.0411101413.530e59a7@posting.google.com>...
> I recently read a report claiming that the quality of sound on a cd
> could be vastly improved by rerecording the cd onto a black color cd
> blank. The thesis, as I understood it, was that the black color is
> easier for the laser to read than standard white or silver colors.
>
> The report involved extensive comparison testing. Unfortunately, I've
> lost the link to the report.
>
> Has anyone had any experience with this or tested the proposition?
>
> Second question, anybody have any experience with the Marantz CDR 300
> portable cd recorder? I'm considering purchasing to replace my
> mini-disc, which I use at rehearsals. I've heard the Marantz limiter
> may reduce the sound quality noticeably. Mini-discs compress too much
> it seems, but I like the idea of having a limiter if it really works.
>
> Thanks for any help you can give.
> TCanyon3


You know I was thinking, what could be more black than a Black Sabbath
album on a black CD...and "the answer is none, none more black".

Analogeezer
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 1:06:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
news:IDzld.1231$3U4.105362@news02.tsnz.net...
>
> "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
> news:41946a94$0$25116$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > I've recorded concerts to hard disk and burned a CDR to give to the
artist
> > before he has finished packing his equipment, on many occasions.
> > Of course he only gets the FOH mix until I've mixed/edited the
> > multi-track,
> > but with a stand alone CD recorder there is no multi-track.

> There is also no margin for error in the headroom department.

I can't say I've ever had more than 96 dB DNR at a live gig anyway. And I
know the maximum output of the desk.
24 bit only buys you one extra bit of headroom on the M-Audio delta cards
anyway.

TonyP.
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 1:06:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
news:4199df2d$0$2678$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au
> "Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
> news:IDzld.1231$3U4.105362@news02.tsnz.net...
>>
>> "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:41946a94$0$25116$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>> I've recorded concerts to hard disk and burned a CDR to give to the
>>> artist before he has finished packing his equipment, on many
>>> occasions. Of course he only gets the FOH mix until I've
>>> mixed/edited the multi-track,
>>> but with a stand alone CD recorder there is no multi-track.
>
>> There is also no margin for error in the headroom department.
>
> I can't say I've ever had more than 96 dB DNR at a live gig anyway.

The problem is that if you are recording the distributed disc, you are on
the hot seat when it comes to head room.

Normally, I record with a minimum of 10 dB of headroom, but those tracks
don't make good listening without some processing and leveling.

> And I know the maximum output of the desk.
> 24 bit only buys you one extra bit of headroom on the M-Audio delta
> cards anyway.

The level problems are all perceptual, not technical.
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 1:06:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <75udnTpXOfTinAfcRVn-qQ@comcast.com> arnyk@hotpop.com writes:

> The problem is that if you are recording the distributed disc, you are on
> the hot seat when it comes to head room.
>
> Normally, I record with a minimum of 10 dB of headroom, but those tracks
> don't make good listening without some processing and leveling.

If they don't make good listening, it's not because there's 10 dB of
headroom, it's because the performance wasn't consistent, or you
weren't riding gain to keep the level reasonably constant. (or dozens
of other reasons why we "produce" or "master" to make accurate
captures of a performance sound more palatable to the listener)


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
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 here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 1:06:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1100614733k@trad
> In article <75udnTpXOfTinAfcRVn-qQ@comcast.com> arnyk@hotpop.com
> writes:
>
>> The problem is that if you are recording the distributed disc, you
>> are on the hot seat when it comes to head room.
>>
>> Normally, I record with a minimum of 10 dB of headroom, but those
>> tracks don't make good listening without some processing and
>> leveling.
>
> If they don't make good listening, it's not because there's 10 dB of
> headroom, it's because the performance wasn't consistent, or you
> weren't riding gain to keep the level reasonably constant.

As a matter of principle, I don't ride gain while tracking.
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 1:06:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <n-udnf_2l8uC-AfcRVn-tA@comcast.com> arnyk@hotpop.com writes:

> As a matter of principle, I don't ride gain while tracking.

Suit yourself. As a matter of principle, I do. But then I listen to
what I'm recording, as a matter of principle. Given what I believe are
your usual circumstances (church) monitoring well enough to make
judgements about loudness is probably not possible.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
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 here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 1:10:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:Xv2dnYZ7faR61QrcRVn-pw@comcast.com...
> "Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
> news:RHzld.1234$3U4.106005@news02.tsnz.net
> > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> Actually, if you read the fine print, I've described 16 bit 44.1 as a
> >> perfectly adequate distribution medium. For years I've been
> >> advocating 32/44 for tracking because of the desirability of
> >> maintaining lots of headroom.
> >
> > If you ahve a bunch of 32 bit files then you're gunna need a 64 bit
> > processing environemt.
>
> Not if its 32 bit floating point.

And not if the best converters made are only 20 bits of resolution. 32 IEEE
is already max overkill, and totally unnecessary for tracking. Just right
for processing though.

TonyP.
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 3:17:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message news:4199e01f$0$2675

> And not if the best converters made are only 20 bits of resolution. 32
> IEEE
> is already max overkill, and totally unnecessary for tracking. Just right
> for processing though.

I do't think anybody was seriously suggesting tracking to a 32 bit file.
Were they ? Maybe they were just getting carried away with "my bit is bigger
than your bit'.

geoff
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 3:17:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
news:hllmd.6341$3U4.133314@news02.tsnz.net

> "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message news:4199e01f$0$2675

>> And not if the best converters made are only 20 bits of resolution.
>> 32 IEEE is already max overkill, and totally unnecessary for tracking.
>> Just
>> right for processing though.

> I do't think anybody was seriously suggesting tracking to a 32 bit
> file.

I'm perfectly serious about tracking to 32 bit floating point because its
the *only* better alterative to 16 bit fxied point in Audition/CEP.

>Were they ?

32 bit FP is way overkill for tracking, but when its all you have to work
with, and when it works so well and easily...

....what's a boy to do?

>Maybe they were just getting carried away with "my
> bit is bigger than your bit'.

There are just two format choices with any pretense of quality, that are
available in Audition/CEP: 16 bit fixed point and 32 bit floating point.
Pick one, and just one for the job! ;-)
November 17, 2004 6:46:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message news:<GJzld.1235$3U4.106020@news02.tsnz.net>...
> <Garrett Cox> wrote in message news:2004111115482216807%
>
> > I can't speak to highly of Marantz recently. Had a standalone burner fail
> > and they're flat out denying that they ever made such a product. I know
> > they either just got bought out or merged with someone but that was
> > rediculous. It's probably just over year old. YMMV.
>
> Where I work has a warehouse full of them. It is, however, Marantz Pro,
> which the average consumer-orientated support person may not even know
> exists.
>
> geoff

It'd be like complaining to a Yamaha motorcycle dealer about your Yamaha power amp.
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 10:49:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:ZJSdnflDEIFxnQfcRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
>
> I'm perfectly serious about tracking to 32 bit floating point because its
> the *only* better alterative to 16 bit fxied point in Audition/CEP.

Can Aud/CE not record a 24 bit WAV ? Jeeze - I'd be looking for a new
application then.

> There are just two format choices with any pretense of quality, that are
> available in Audition/CEP: 16 bit fixed point and 32 bit floating point.
> Pick one, and just one for the job! ;-)

Oh I see. How inept !

geoff
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 10:49:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
news:tZrmd.6356$3U4.134928@news02.tsnz.net
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:ZJSdnflDEIFxnQfcRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
>>
>> I'm perfectly serious about tracking to 32 bit floating point
>> because its the *only* better alterative to 16 bit fxied point in
>> Audition/CEP.
>
> Can Aud/CE not record a 24 bit WAV ? Jeeze - I'd be looking for a new
> application then.

It can save in a number of 24 bit formats, but it records all hi rez in 32
bit floating point format.

>> There are just two format choices with any pretense of quality, that
>> are available in Audition/CEP: 16 bit fixed point and 32 bit
>> floating point. Pick one, and just one for the job! ;-)

> Oh I see. How inept !

Just a example of how powerful modern computers are - the Audition/ CE
default format is 32 bit FP which causes few if any performance problems in
actual use.
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 10:49:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
> news:tZrmd.6356$3U4.134928@news02.tsnz.net
>
>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:ZJSdnflDEIFxnQfcRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
>>
>>> I'm perfectly serious about tracking to 32 bit floating point
>>> because its the *only* better alterative to 16 bit fxied point in
>>> Audition/CEP.
>>
>> Can Aud/CE not record a 24 bit WAV ? Jeeze - I'd be looking for a new
>> application then.
>
>
> It can save in a number of 24 bit formats, but it records all hi rez in 32
> bit floating point format.

Samplitude used to do this as well but they eventually got it working directly with 24-bit files.




>>> There are just two format choices with any pretense of quality, that
>>> are available in Audition/CEP: 16 bit fixed point and 32 bit
>>> floating point. Pick one, and just one for the job! ;-)
>>
>>
>> Oh I see. How inept !
>
>
> Just a example of how powerful modern computers are - the Audition/ CE
> default format is 32 bit FP which causes few if any performance problems in
> actual use.

But it does eat disk space a little faster than a packed 24-bit WAV does.
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 10:50:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1100639359k@trad
> In article <n-udnf_2l8uC-AfcRVn-tA@comcast.com> arnyk@hotpop.com
> writes:
>
>> As a matter of principle, I don't ride gain while tracking.
>
> Suit yourself. As a matter of principle, I do. But then I listen to
> what I'm recording, as a matter of principle.

As do I.

> Given what I believe are
> your usual circumstances (church) monitoring well enough to make
> judgements about loudness is probably not possible.

I'm mixing live sound at the same time I'm recording.

However, I wouldn't change a thing - mixing later on is far more precise.
For one thing, I have perfect knowlege of what is from the standpoint of the
flow of the recording, the future.
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 4:56:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <VtWdnQc3Q9jJ1AbcRVn-jA@comcast.com> arnyk@hotpop.com writes:

> I'm mixing live sound at the same time I'm recording.
>
> However, I wouldn't change a thing - mixing later on is far more precise.
> For one thing, I have perfect knowlege of what is from the standpoint of the
> flow of the recording, the future.

That's the way to do it, if you have the time, and particularly if
you're being paid for taking that time.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
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 here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 10:18:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:7oudnWlkXYtw-
>
> It can save in a number of 24 bit formats, but it records all hi rez in
> 32 bit floating point format.

It record in the resolution you soundcard (+ driver) can supply. It forces
the OTT file format on you.


>
> Just a example of how powerful modern computers are - the Audition/ CE
> default format is 32 bit FP which causes few if any performance problems
> in actual use.

But is totally unnecessary overhead given that 'real' 24 bit converters do
not, and probably never will exist, owing to the laws of Physics.

Now 32 bit floats for processing and intermediate file saving is a different
story...

geoff
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 10:18:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
news:Y2Cmd.6421$3U4.137845@news02.tsnz.net...
>
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:7oudnWlkXYtw-
> >
> > It can save in a number of 24 bit formats, but it records all hi rez in
> > 32 bit floating point format.
>
> It record in the resolution you soundcard (+ driver) can supply. It
forces
> the OTT file format on you.
>
>
> >
> > Just a example of how powerful modern computers are - the Audition/ CE
> > default format is 32 bit FP which causes few if any performance problems
> > in actual use.
>
> But is totally unnecessary overhead given that 'real' 24 bit converters do
> not, and probably never will exist, owing to the laws of Physics.
>
> Now 32 bit floats for processing and intermediate file saving is a
different
> story...

Well, given the fact that the vast majority of tracks recorded in Aud/CE
will be, in fact, processed, saved as intermediates, etc., perhaps
converting to 32/float isn't so stupid after all. Saves you a step.

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 10:18:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
news:Y2Cmd.6421$3U4.137845@news02.tsnz.net

> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:7oudnWlkXYtw-

>> It can save in a number of 24 bit formats, but it records all hi rez
>> in 32 bit floating point format.

> It record in the resolution you soundcard (+ driver) can supply.

The good news is that Audition's 32 bit floating format can easily and
precisely handle the resoluation of any extant or forseeable real-world
audio signal.

> It forces the OTT file format on you.

I can live with the OTT file format quite happily, given that recording in
the 32 bit format makes the audio data immediately available in a preferred
format for processing and editing.

>> Just a example of how powerful modern computers are - the Audition/
>> CE default format is 32 bit FP which causes few if any performance
>> problems in actual use.

> But is totally unnecessary overhead given that 'real' 24 bit
> converters do not, and probably never will exist, owing to the laws
> of Physics.

Sure, but its virtually a given that the data will be processed and edited
before its delivered. Recording in a preferred format for processing and
editing means that the data is immediately available for finishing, without
waiting for conversion.

> Now 32 bit floats for processing and intermediate file saving is a
> different story...

Having the data recorded in a preferred format for processing and editing
makes the total production process easier and quicker.
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 10:18:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:18:10 +1300, Geoff Wood <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam>
wrote:
>
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:7oudnWlkXYtw-
>>
>> It can save in a number of 24 bit formats, but it records all hi rez in
>> 32 bit floating point format.
>
> It record in the resolution you soundcard (+ driver) can supply. It forces
> the OTT file format on you.
>
>
>>
>> Just a example of how powerful modern computers are - the Audition/ CE
>> default format is 32 bit FP which causes few if any performance problems
>> in actual use.
>
> But is totally unnecessary overhead given that 'real' 24 bit converters do
> not, and probably never will exist, owing to the laws of Physics.
>

32-bit converters exist, albeit they're targeted to seismographic
applications, so are limited to around 1kHz.

Not the most useful for audio, but talk about extreme bass . . .
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 10:18:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:rmCmd.28498$7i4.8447@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net

> "Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
> news:Y2Cmd.6421$3U4.137845@news02.tsnz.net...

>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:7oudnWlkXYtw-

>> But is totally unnecessary overhead given that 'real' 24 bit
>> converters do not, and probably never will exist, owing to the laws
>> of Physics.

>> Now 32 bit floats for processing and intermediate file saving is a
>> different story...

> Well, given the fact that the vast majority of tracks recorded in
> Aud/CE will be, in fact, processed, saved as intermediates, etc.,
> perhaps converting to 32/float isn't so stupid after all. Saves you a
> step.

That's exactly it. The data starts out captured in the format that all
procesing and storage but the final distribution medium uses. BTW, if you
burn CDs with Audition/CE, you can burn them from 32 bit files. So, you
never have to explicitly do a file conversion. The burning takes the same
amount of time whether you convert to 16 bits before hand, or just leave the
16 bit conversion up to the built-in burning software.

Hard drive space being as cheap and readily availble as it now is, the extra
(33%) storage overhead is not a serious issue.
!