Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CD Duplicator/Printer Q's

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 1:45:29 AM

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

Hi All,

Its time to spring for a CD Printer/Duplicator for runs of 100
or less CD's to be used to distribute CD's to our broadcast partners.
Were on a budget of 3000-4000$ for this item.

So far the two that seem to be popular are the products from
Microboards (DX-2 and Rimage) and the Primera (Bravo Pro).

http://www.microboards.com/new/article.php?story=200501...
http://www.primera.com/bravopro_disc_publisher.html

These models on the surface seem to do about what we need, but
I have was hoping for some input from RAP.

Anyone using any of the above units or can direct me to other decent
models to look at? Any horror stories or suggestions as to things
to look into or stay away from?

Were a small radio show currently supporting about 30 radio
stations across the southwest. We need to supply our weekly
broadcast CD's to about 20 of these currently. We are looking
at distribution through places like Content Depot but currently
still send a lot of stuff out on CD.
We have promotional mailings and other media sent out on CD each
month as well.

Thanks
Chip Borton

More about : duplicator printer

April 15, 2005 3:45:30 PM

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

Stay away from Microboards and Primera they are both problematic.Go for a
new Rimage 2000i or a used Rimage protege with thermal prism printer.The
thermal printer is way better than inkjet printers.We sometimes sell used
Rimage equipment.I have a unit in now but its sold.If you are interested in
used then send me an email as I may come accross something.I use rimage
equipment myself and know it well.


Good luck
Troy



Chip Borton <cobiashimew@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C6-dnQNgYJZOpcLfRVn-hw@comcast.com...
> Hi All,
>
> Its time to spring for a CD Printer/Duplicator for runs of 100
> or less CD's to be used to distribute CD's to our broadcast partners.
> Were on a budget of 3000-4000$ for this item.
>
> So far the two that seem to be popular are the products from
> Microboards (DX-2 and Rimage) and the Primera (Bravo Pro).
>
> http://www.microboards.com/new/article.php?story=200501...
> http://www.primera.com/bravopro_disc_publisher.html
>
> These models on the surface seem to do about what we need, but
> I have was hoping for some input from RAP.
>
> Anyone using any of the above units or can direct me to other decent
> models to look at? Any horror stories or suggestions as to things
> to look into or stay away from?
>
> Were a small radio show currently supporting about 30 radio
> stations across the southwest. We need to supply our weekly
> broadcast CD's to about 20 of these currently. We are looking
> at distribution through places like Content Depot but currently
> still send a lot of stuff out on CD.
> We have promotional mailings and other media sent out on CD each
> month as well.
>
> Thanks
> Chip Borton
April 16, 2005 4:27:21 AM

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

Eh, I'll take that with a grain of salt. I've run thousands of discs
through my refurb Primera unit, with only one problem. The CD drawer
started to droop, so I filed the front bezel of the drawer off to keep it
from snagging on the reject chute. Other than that, I agree with Troy. If
photo quality art isn't a concern, go monochrome thermal for the printer.


"Troy" <alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:uPN7e.1022944$8l.464491@pd7tw1no...
> Stay away from Microboards and Primera they are both problematic.Go for a
> new Rimage 2000i or a used Rimage protege with thermal prism printer.The
> thermal printer is way better than inkjet printers.We sometimes sell used
> Rimage equipment.I have a unit in now but its sold.If you are interested
in
> used then send me an email as I may come accross something.I use rimage
> equipment myself and know it well.
>
>
> Good luck
> Troy
>
>
>
> Chip Borton <cobiashimew@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:C6-dnQNgYJZOpcLfRVn-hw@comcast.com...
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Its time to spring for a CD Printer/Duplicator for runs of 100
> > or less CD's to be used to distribute CD's to our broadcast partners.
> > Were on a budget of 3000-4000$ for this item.
> >
> > So far the two that seem to be popular are the products from
> > Microboards (DX-2 and Rimage) and the Primera (Bravo Pro).
> >
> > http://www.microboards.com/new/article.php?story=200501...
> > http://www.primera.com/bravopro_disc_publisher.html
> >
> > These models on the surface seem to do about what we need, but
> > I have was hoping for some input from RAP.
> >
> > Anyone using any of the above units or can direct me to other decent
> > models to look at? Any horror stories or suggestions as to things
> > to look into or stay away from?
> >
> > Were a small radio show currently supporting about 30 radio
> > stations across the southwest. We need to supply our weekly
> > broadcast CD's to about 20 of these currently. We are looking
> > at distribution through places like Content Depot but currently
> > still send a lot of stuff out on CD.
> > We have promotional mailings and other media sent out on CD each
> > month as well.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Chip Borton
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 10:43:58 AM

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

Chip Borton wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Its time to spring for a CD Printer/Duplicator for runs of 100
> or less CD's to be used to distribute CD's to our broadcast
partners.
> Were on a budget of 3000-4000$ for this item.

I've done runs of 300 CDs with a few PCs with burners, and a Casio
thermal transfer printer. Out-of-pocket costs were under $100.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 1:35:25 PM

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

Hi Arny,

For budget situations, there's another 'trick'. Buy 4-5 burners and put
them in usb2/fw enclosures and use the 'use multiple recorders'
function in Nero... It's not a 'pro' solution but makes things much
quicker for small projects!

Regards,

Evangelos

%
Evangelos Himonides
IoE, University of London
tel: +44 2076126599
fax: +44 2076126741
"Allas to those who never sing but die with all their music in them..."



Oliver Wendell Holmes


%
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 1:54:51 PM

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
> Chip Borton wrote:
>> Its time to spring for a CD Printer/Duplicator for runs of 100
>> or less CD's to be used to distribute CD's to our broadcast
>> partners.
>> Were on a budget of 3000-4000$ for this item.
>
> I've done runs of 300 CDs with a few PCs with burners, and a Casio
> thermal transfer printer. Out-of-pocket costs were under $100.

You can buy one of those automated machines that
burns and prints a whole stack of discs, within your
budget. But I agree with Arny that for low volume it
doesn't seem cost-effective.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 2:03:35 PM

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

Arny Krueger wrote:

> I've done runs of 300 CDs with a few PCs with burners, and a Casio
> thermal transfer printer. Out-of-pocket costs were under $100.


Yep, thats what were doing now and its killing us.
The man-hours of burning/printing/testing coupled
with the inability to use the PC's for anything else
during that process is a problem.
Were also doing the CD's every two or three weeks
as an ongoing process so it really adds up.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 4:08:35 PM

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

Chip Borton wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> I've done runs of 300 CDs with a few PCs with burners, and a Casio
>> thermal transfer printer. Out-of-pocket costs were under $100.

> Yep, thats what were doing now and its killing us.
> The man-hours of burning/printing/testing coupled
> with the inability to use the PC's for anything else
> during that process is a problem.
> Were also doing the CD's every two or three weeks
> as an ongoing process so it really adds up.

Yeah after my post I thought about doing this every week. It seems
like the cost of at least an off-the-shelf disc duplicator is a slam
dunk.

Dupping full discs still runs about 6 minutes per batch. On a standard
PC, a batch is just one disc. I don't know how full your discs are.

Printing on a low-cost thermal transfer printer seems to take me about
a minute per disc. I could see just a multi-disc duplicator as being a
wonderful first step.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 5:46:31 PM

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

Solid advice!
For a silly reason I had 'laptops' in mind... Yes, that is even more
economical.

best regards,

Evangelos
April 16, 2005 9:49:10 PM

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

The only problem with doing it this way is that quality control from disc to
disc will be different.Professional duplicators do a way better job.CDs will
be bit for bit accurate and each CD can be tested automatically in a
duplicator.



Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:L_CdnaRLscj2cf3fRVn-pg@comcast.com...
> Chip Borton wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Its time to spring for a CD Printer/Duplicator for runs of 100
> > or less CD's to be used to distribute CD's to our broadcast
> partners.
> > Were on a budget of 3000-4000$ for this item.
>
> I've done runs of 300 CDs with a few PCs with burners, and a Casio
> thermal transfer printer. Out-of-pocket costs were under $100.
>
>
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 9:49:11 PM

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

"Troy" wrote ...
> The only problem with doing it this way is that quality
> control from disc to disc will be different.

Huh? It is *digital*! Perhaps you need to expand on your
theory.
April 16, 2005 10:29:58 PM

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

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




Richard Crowley <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:1162ku7njnlrfcb@corp.supernews.com...
> "Troy" wrote ...
> > The only problem with doing it this way is that quality
> > control from disc to disc will be different.
>
> Huh? It is *digital*! Perhaps you need to expand on your
> theory.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 10:29:59 PM

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

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

And duplicators use the same drives as computers do.
The buffers in the drives remove any timing variables
caused by the computer servicing other processes. (See
"Buffer Protection" aka. "Burn Proof", et.al.)
Lastly, if you are worried about having bit-perfect copies
use software that goes back and verifies each copy (which
is something that most duplicators do NOT do.)
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 10:29:59 PM

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

Troy wrote:
> Its not a theory at all.When you use a bunch of computers to do
> burning each copy will be slightly different then the one before
> it.

Might happen, but definately not the rule.

>Not in sound quality but the quality of the burn.

Might happen, but definately not the rule.

> Computers have
> things going on in the background that can cause one CD to have a
> slight glitch during burning while the next one is perfect and so
> on.

The sky might fall during the burn and we'll all be wasted. Computer
burning is not all that flakey. In fact, I'd probably pick a computer
burn over a stand-alone CD-R burn at this point, based on my
real-world experiences.

>Duplicators like rimage will make sure each burn is bit for bit or
reject it.

Now that I can agree with. You can also QC discs for bit-accuracy
using the file comparison facilities in EAC or CDEX.
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 12:30:11 AM

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

Evangelos Himonides wrote:
> For budget situations, there's another 'trick'. Buy 4-5 burners and put
> them in usb2/fw enclosures and use the 'use multiple recorders'
> function in Nero...

Or if you want to go even cheaper, you can buy name brand internal
burners for $30 or less shipped from newegg.com. You should be
able to put 3 of them in virtually any computer that has a single
hard drive, or buy an extra IDE controller card and put 4 or more.
Bump the memory up to 1 GB and the entire CD image can be held in
RAM, so no need to access the hard drive, and you should be able
to burn several simultaneously without problems.

If you already have 1 burner and 512MB of RAM, total cost to upgrade
to 3 burners and 1 GB of RAM should be about $100.

- Logan
April 17, 2005 2:05:35 AM

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

I burn thousands of CDs a month and I am talking from experience.I sure
would not want to pay out good money for CDs knowing they were burned with
PCs.I do work for people all the time that try and do what you do and have
nothing but problems with clients.They come to me and not one
problem......this should tell you something.



Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:Xt2dneGf9YaIw_zfRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
> Troy wrote:
> > Its not a theory at all.When you use a bunch of computers to do
> > burning each copy will be slightly different then the one before
> > it.
>
> Might happen, but definately not the rule.
>
> >Not in sound quality but the quality of the burn.
>
> Might happen, but definately not the rule.
>
> > Computers have
> > things going on in the background that can cause one CD to have a
> > slight glitch during burning while the next one is perfect and so
> > on.
>
> The sky might fall during the burn and we'll all be wasted. Computer
> burning is not all that flakey. In fact, I'd probably pick a computer
> burn over a stand-alone CD-R burn at this point, based on my
> real-world experiences.
>
> >Duplicators like rimage will make sure each burn is bit for bit or
> reject it.
>
> Now that I can agree with. You can also QC discs for bit-accuracy
> using the file comparison facilities in EAC or CDEX.
>
>
April 17, 2005 2:17:47 AM

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

First of all Buffer Protection" aka. "Burn Proof", et.al......can be your
worst enemy when producing large amounts of CDs.Slowing the burn speed and
speeding up again produces un even burning thus causing problems in reading
the CD.If your burnproof is kicking in ......you got problems.Duplication
systems do use the same drives as computers but high end duplicators use
special firmware for the best results.A computer burner is designed as a one
off and high end duplicator is capable of many thousands of a CD.

Who is going to stand there burning 300+ CDs one by one loading by hand and
check each CD with software for bit for bit accuracy??

and yes duplicators do have this option.You can choose to check every cd or
every 2nd one or every 3rd one or set it how you want.I don't know where you
get you info that it "is something that most duplicators do NOT do"

This shows your experience with professional duplication equipment.Stick to
what you know.



Richard Crowley <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:1162n6epe4i7nd8@corp.supernews.com...
> "Troy" wrote ...
> > Its not a theory at all.When you use a bunch of computers to do
> > burning each
> > copy will be slightly different then the one before it.Not in sound
> > quality
> > but the quality of the burn.Computers have things going on in the
> > background
> > that can cause one CD to have a slight glitch during burning while the
> > next
> > one is perfect and so on.Duplicators like rimage will make sure each
> > burn is
> > bit for bit or reject it.
>
> And duplicators use the same drives as computers do.
> The buffers in the drives remove any timing variables
> caused by the computer servicing other processes. (See
> "Buffer Protection" aka. "Burn Proof", et.al.)
> Lastly, if you are worried about having bit-perfect copies
> use software that goes back and verifies each copy (which
> is something that most duplicators do NOT do.)
>
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 2:17:48 AM

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

"Troy" wrote...
> This shows your experience with professional duplication
> equipment. Stick to what you know.

Apparently this "Troy" person actually duplicates all the
CDs on our planet. All those others must just be storefronts
that send him the business.
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 2:37:57 AM

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

"Troy" wrote ...
> Apparently I don't give misinformation like you.I know
> the equipment well,its my business to know it well.As
> for you .....you are the one that jumped in and started
> talking stuff you have no idea about.

Whereas you appearently speak for the entire CD
duplication industry. I wasn't aware that we had such
high-level industry representation. I was also unaware
that there was such uniformity in the industry that you
could confidently speak for all of them. My mistake.
(But plonk anyway.)
April 17, 2005 2:48:14 AM

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

Chip Borton wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Its time to spring for a CD Printer/Duplicator for runs of 100
> or less CD's to be used to distribute CD's to our broadcast partners.
> Were on a budget of 3000-4000$ for this item.

I have a primera composer XL at work. Once I got the physical alignment
correct between the devices, it works just about flawlessly. I'll set a
batch of 100 to go overnight with about 95% confidence it will be done
in the morning. The only time that is an issue is when I need 100%
confidence... and for that, I set my alarm and Timbuktu in to the
computer which is at my work to double check that it's still going strong.

If I were you, I'd get the version that has two burning drives, and set
it up to verify every single disc. That way, you can be confident that
all copies will be good. I have the single driver version, and
verifying every one is too slow... so I have it set up to verify every 3
copies, and I've had only maybe two returns at this point.

Printing works pretty well with the Signature Pro printer I have. Ink
costs are a bit high, but all in all I'm happy with it.

I recently had a rush job that I turned around, just 300 CDs but very
quick turnaround. My company balked at the $1500+ it would have cost to
outsource, so I did it in-house and it all worked fine.

Any questions, feelf ree to email me.
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 2:48:30 AM

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

Troy wrote:

> I burn thousands of CDs a month and I am talking from experience.

Right, and the 1000's I've sucessfully burned on PCs are totally
meaningless.

> I sure would not want to pay out good money for CDs knowing they
were
> burned with PCs.

How can you tell without someone telling you how they were burned?

> I do work for people all the time that try and do
> what you do and have nothing but problems with clients.

It's all got to be the fault of those %$#!! PCs, right?

>They come to me and not one problem......this should tell you
something.

They come to me and not one problem... ...this should tell you
something.
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 5:19:53 PM

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

>Right, and the 1000's I've sucessfully burned on PCs are totally
meaningless.

> and my experience after doing 100's of burns of CDs on PCs

opps arny (I must need new glasses)
which is it 1,000's or 100's

it is in the scale of number of cdr's that must be handled
that makes me want to
move on to an easier / better system.
the rest of your arguement is just confusing the issue with facts
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 7:59:28 PM

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

> Maybe Dale is just trying to drum up business for himself?

hell no, and I do not want to "trust" an outside source to create my
cdr's in quanity

this topic just came in at the same time I was considering this next
step.
I do not want my customers to have "problems" with my "product"
and I do not want to be at a computer for days burning cdr's in order
to fulfill my commiments.

this burning one at a time by hand loading the computer is a real pain
and the choices I found were
ReflexMax which was still hand loading but
it is a stand alone, no computer necessary, burns multiples at a time
with plextor burners
but one still has to deal with label's
the elitemicro or primeveria bravo. automated publishing systems
(and they require their own computer.)

Why can"t I just post my final product on itunes???? <VBG>
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 8:27:33 PM

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

dale wrote:
>> Right, and the 1000's I've sucessfully burned on PCs are totally
>> meaningless.
>
>> and my experience after doing 100's of burns of CDs on PCs
>
> opps arny (I must need new glasses)which is it 1,000's or 100's

I've burned well over 1,000 CDs, but I'm not sure about the third
thousand.


> it is in the scale of number of cdr's that must be handled
> that makes me want to move on to an easier / better system.

And I have no complaint about that.

> the rest of your arguement is just confusing the issue with facts

The point is that Troy is trying to muddy the water with overly-broad
generalizations.

He's said that he doesn't trust PCs to burn CDs because some people he
knows have had problems doing it. Reading between the lines their
inability to do what many do without problems is making him money. I
don't begrudge him the money for his hard work, but I do object to his
overly-broad self-serving negative comments about technology that
works well for a great many people, myself included.
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 8:27:34 PM

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
> I've burned well over 1,000 CDs, but I'm not sure about
> the third thousand.

Same here. Can't remember the last time I had a failure.
At least a couple years ago. Maybe Dale is just trying
to drum up business for himself?
April 17, 2005 9:16:54 PM

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

I am just telling you from my experiences.If the origional poster wants
quality burns I am telling him how to get them.What you are doing is Russian
Roulette.As I have stated I have re burned hundreds of CDs for people who
have done it your way and I don't recomend doing it your way.




Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:SredndjbNJjnU_zfRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> Troy wrote:
>
> > I burn thousands of CDs a month and I am talking from experience.
>
> Right, and the 1000's I've sucessfully burned on PCs are totally
> meaningless.
>
> > I sure would not want to pay out good money for CDs knowing they
> were
> > burned with PCs.
>
> How can you tell without someone telling you how they were burned?
>
> > I do work for people all the time that try and do
> > what you do and have nothing but problems with clients.
>
> It's all got to be the fault of those %$#!! PCs, right?
>
> >They come to me and not one problem......this should tell you
> something.
>
> They come to me and not one problem... ...this should tell you
> something.
>
>
>
>
April 17, 2005 9:23:33 PM

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

I don't speak for anyone but myself.I beleive in giving clients the highest
quality product they can get and have been doing this for a long time.I have
a lot of clients who trust me to make their product.When someone asks me
about equipment I will be honest and tell them what I found to work best in
their price range.

Maybe you would like to share your mass duplication equipment experience
with the rest of the class ????




Richard Crowley <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:1163tho7j5v92e1@corp.supernews.com...
> "Troy" wrote ...
> > Apparently I don't give misinformation like you.I know
> > the equipment well,its my business to know it well.As
> > for you .....you are the one that jumped in and started
> > talking stuff you have no idea about.
>
> Whereas you appearently speak for the entire CD
> duplication industry. I wasn't aware that we had such
> high-level industry representation. I was also unaware
> that there was such uniformity in the industry that you
> could confidently speak for all of them. My mistake.
> (But plonk anyway.)
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 11:36:29 PM

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

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

god what a pompous statement,

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

but what the hell
I am all alone.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 4:17:47 AM

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

Troy wrote:
> Using multipul computers for burning large amounts of CDs is not a good idea
> because the burn quality will vary from CD to CD.Some CDs will be fine where
> some CDs may have a skip or a pop in a certain spot.

No, they will not. Not if you use software that reports to you,
after the burn has completed, whether the burner's internal buffer
was empty at any point in time during the burn. (And then, of
course, throw in the trash the CDs for which the answer was "yes",
in the event that you have any of them.)

> You want to use a tried and trusted quality duplicator for these type of
> CDs.I'm sure some others will come forward with bad experiences in doing it
> on a bunch of different computers.

I'm sure we could dig up some tales of people who've had bad experiences
when they never changed the oil in their car and then it broke down on
the side of the road. Then we could conclude that all cars are unreliable,
it's hopeless, and you HAVE to take the train to get good results.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with taking the train. I'm just
asking you to acknowledge that it is possible to reliably burn CDs
with a computer. That's what CD duplicators are internally, after
all: specially-configured computers. So, it stands to reason that
a properly-configured dekstop computer can do the task reliably as well.

In turn, I will acknowledge that, yes, it takes effort to configure
your computer properly so that it can do reliable burns. That this
is the case is unfortunate (it should come that way from the factory),
but not surprising given the pathetic state of most software these days.

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

- Logan
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 4:21:39 AM

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

"Logan Shaw" <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nBe8e.4050$h6.316@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> Evangelos Himonides wrote:
> > For budget situations, there's another 'trick'. Buy 4-5 burners and put
> > them in usb2/fw enclosures and use the 'use multiple recorders'
> > function in Nero...
>
> Or if you want to go even cheaper, you can buy name brand internal
> burners for $30 or less shipped from newegg.com. You should be
> able to put 3 of them in virtually any computer that has a single
> hard drive, or buy an extra IDE controller card and put 4 or more.
> Bump the memory up to 1 GB and the entire CD image can be held in
> RAM, so no need to access the hard drive, and you should be able
> to burn several simultaneously without problems.
>
> If you already have 1 burner and 512MB of RAM, total cost to upgrade
> to 3 burners and 1 GB of RAM should be about $100.
>
> - Logan

I looked into this a while ago, and the solution I had in mind was to make
an expansion to my existing PC case for an additional 8 cd-rw's for a total
of 12, pop in a second 500W ATX power supply (cheapest 5V/12V power supply)
just to power the additional drives, and 3 ATA PCI cards. With 12 drives
you can pump out 120 discs per hour. According to Nero's support staff it
would work. It turns out that since I don't need printed packaging and
instead only plain white envelopes, replication becomes cheap enough that
I'd be working for about $5/hour if I burned and labeled them myself and
getting uglier results, so I didn't end up building it.
April 18, 2005 4:24:27 AM

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

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

You give advice all the time on what works best......well in this case you
are not right ......that is not the best solution when quality counts.Also
the origional poster has said he wants an automated duplicator /
printer.This is why he asked about Microboards (DX-2 and Rimage) and the
Primera (Bravo Pro).






Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:v4Gdnd-GzOwoW__fRVn-uA@comcast.com...
> dale wrote:
> >> Right, and the 1000's I've sucessfully burned on PCs are totally
> >> meaningless.
> >
> >> and my experience after doing 100's of burns of CDs on PCs
> >
> > opps arny (I must need new glasses)which is it 1,000's or 100's
>
> I've burned well over 1,000 CDs, but I'm not sure about the third
> thousand.
>
>
> > it is in the scale of number of cdr's that must be handled
> > that makes me want to move on to an easier / better system.
>
> And I have no complaint about that.
>
> > the rest of your arguement is just confusing the issue with facts
>
> The point is that Troy is trying to muddy the water with overly-broad
> generalizations.
>
> He's said that he doesn't trust PCs to burn CDs because some people he
> knows have had problems doing it. Reading between the lines their
> inability to do what many do without problems is making him money. I
> don't begrudge him the money for his hard work, but I do object to his
> overly-broad self-serving negative comments about technology that
> works well for a great many people, myself included.
>
>
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 4:24:28 AM

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

Troy wrote:

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

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

It seems like your story changes everytime you get a little more
stressed.
April 18, 2005 4:29:16 AM

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

Say what you want.......its still not a good way to do it.If you can't
accept that than I DON'T CARE

Go talk to any duplication place they will tell you what I have told you.



Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:L0D8e.7242$h6.6187@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> Troy wrote:
> > Using multipul computers for burning large amounts of CDs is not a good
idea
> > because the burn quality will vary from CD to CD.Some CDs will be fine
where
> > some CDs may have a skip or a pop in a certain spot.
>
> No, they will not. Not if you use software that reports to you,
> after the burn has completed, whether the burner's internal buffer
> was empty at any point in time during the burn. (And then, of
> course, throw in the trash the CDs for which the answer was "yes",
> in the event that you have any of them.)
>
> > You want to use a tried and trusted quality duplicator for these type of
> > CDs.I'm sure some others will come forward with bad experiences in doing
it
> > on a bunch of different computers.
>
> I'm sure we could dig up some tales of people who've had bad experiences
> when they never changed the oil in their car and then it broke down on
> the side of the road. Then we could conclude that all cars are
unreliable,
> it's hopeless, and you HAVE to take the train to get good results.
>
> I'm not saying there's anything wrong with taking the train. I'm just
> asking you to acknowledge that it is possible to reliably burn CDs
> with a computer. That's what CD duplicators are internally, after
> all: specially-configured computers. So, it stands to reason that
> a properly-configured dekstop computer can do the task reliably as well.
>
> In turn, I will acknowledge that, yes, it takes effort to configure
> your computer properly so that it can do reliable burns. That this
> is the case is unfortunate (it should come that way from the factory),
> but not surprising given the pathetic state of most software these days.
>
> Of course the real tragedy with all this is the Compact Disc format
> was designed quite some time ago and makes all this unnecessarily hard.
> If someone with half a brain were to design a format these days, they'd
> make it so that it would be OK for the writer to pause in the middle
> of the process if necessary with no ill effects whatsoever.
>
> - Logan
April 18, 2005 4:49:49 AM

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

Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:rPidnQblB6Kan_7fRVn-hA@comcast.com...
> Troy wrote:
>
> > Some people can only give advice and not take it.You burned over
> 1000
> > CDs....well I've probably done 250,000 on many different systems.So
> > in this case I think that gives me a little more experience than
> > you.I don't recomend your way of making CDs at all,but if it works
> > for you then go for it.
>
> Trow, are you sure that wasn't 2,500,000 discs on different systems?
>
> It seems like your story changes everytime you get a little more
> stressed.
>
>
What the hell are you talking about ????.I never told you how many CDs I
have done.I have never changed my story at all.We have done up to 10,000 in
a month that is more than I can say for your 1000 in a life time.

Maybe you have burned 100 CDs not 1000.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 5:28:16 AM

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

Troy wrote:
> Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:rPidnQblB6Kan_7fRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>> Troy wrote:
>>
>>> Some people can only give advice and not take it.You burned over
>> 1000
>>> CDs....well I've probably done 250,000 on many different
systems.So
>>> in this case I think that gives me a little more experience than
>>> you.I don't recomend your way of making CDs at all,but if it works
>>> for you then go for it.
>>
>> Trow, are you sure that wasn't 2,500,000 discs on different
systems?
>>
>> It seems like your story changes everytime you get a little more
>> stressed.
>>
>>
> What the hell are you talking about ????.

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

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

> Maybe you have burned 100 CDs not 1000.

I've done 300 in a weekend.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 8:51:01 AM

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

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

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

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

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

> you can pump out 120 discs per hour.

troy here is why you keep getting business
it is the quanity vs quality
if you burn too fast
the laser can not burn a clean 0 or 1
and then it becomes blurred
check with an audio archivist,
this is a disaster waiting to happen.
April 18, 2005 10:52:50 AM

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

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

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



Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:H7udna83n47t2P7fRVn-hg@comcast.com...
> Troy wrote:
> > Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> > news:rPidnQblB6Kan_7fRVn-hA@comcast.com...
> >> Troy wrote:
> >>
> >>> Some people can only give advice and not take it.You burned over
> >> 1000
> >>> CDs....well I've probably done 250,000 on many different
> systems.So
> >>> in this case I think that gives me a little more experience than
> >>> you.I don't recomend your way of making CDs at all,but if it works
> >>> for you then go for it.
> >>
> >> Trow, are you sure that wasn't 2,500,000 discs on different
> systems?
> >>
> >> It seems like your story changes everytime you get a little more
> >> stressed.
> >>
> >>
> > What the hell are you talking about ????.
>
> A story that is getting better and better after being told several
> times! ;-)
>
> >I never told you how many
> > CDs I have done.I have never changed my story at all.We have done up
> > to 10,000 in a month that is more than I can say for your 1000 in a
> > life time.
>
> > Maybe you have burned 100 CDs not 1000.
>
> I've done 300 in a weekend.
>
>
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 12:06:52 PM

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

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

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

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

So, how is that pompous?

- Logan
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 12:09:58 PM

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

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

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

- Logan
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 2:32:11 PM

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

In article <qXJ8e.8482$h6.3349@tornado.texas.rr.com> lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com writes:

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

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

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (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
April 18, 2005 6:02:39 PM

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

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

dale
April 18, 2005 7:57:56 PM

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

Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:qXJ8e.8482$h6.3349@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> Troy wrote:
> > By the way you should contact the 300 people and see how many of your
> > CDs didn't play.....I think you would be surprised how many didn't and
how
> > many had glitches.You sold them CDs that I bet you din't even check them
as
> > that takes to much time by hand.
>
> If you wanted to check them, why on earth would you check them by hand?
> Why not just script it so that every CD is burned and then its contents
> are ripped back to WAV files (or whatever format) which are then
> compared against the original to make sure they're bit perfect?
>
> - Logan

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

You have just made the whole process way more difficult than it has to
be.Buy a real automated duplicator and stop pissing around.Ifyou had to do
this with 300 CDs you would be out of your mind by the end of it all.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 8:01:07 PM

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

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:29:58 GMT, Troy <alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote:

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

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

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

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

Cheers.

James.
April 18, 2005 8:01:08 PM

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

James Perrett <James.Perrett@soc.soton.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:o pspfnz5zy8tjbad@news.nerc.ac.uk...
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:29:58 GMT, Troy <alternate-root@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > Its not a theory at all.When you use a bunch of computers to do burning
> > each
> > copy will be slightly different then the one before it.Not in sound
> > quality
> > but the quality of the burn.Computers have things going on in the
> > background
> > that can cause one CD to have a slight glitch during burning while the
> > next
> > one is perfect and so on.Duplicators like rimage will make sure each
> > burn is
> > bit for bit or reject it.
> >
>
> While I think that an automated duplicator is the right way for the
> original poster to go, I don't think that Troy is being particularly fair
> to the computer burner. After all, most duplication masters will be burned
> in a standard burner to start with.
>

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




> With all large audio CD-R batches you'll get a small percentage of
> returns, no matter what they're burned on. Usually the discs themselves
> are fine but the user probably tried to use them on an older player that
> didn't handle CD-R's particularly well.
>
> I use a 2 burner setup with Feurio to run off batches of CD's. I've never
> seen a glitch due to background processes for the simple reason that my
> burning PC is set up for the job with the bare minimum of processes
> running in the background. There's nothing wrong with a system like this
> for the occasional batch of CD's.
>
> Cheers.
>
> James.
April 18, 2005 8:07:54 PM

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

dale <dallen@frognet.net> wrote in message
news:1113825061.554791.140880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> the original poster wanted advice on a CD publishing sysytem
> you launch into a diatribe on the CDA format.
> it is not possible to make a compact disc at home on you computer.
> a compact disc is done with a glass master and pressed in plastics
> it is possible to burn a cd-r in that senario.
> this involves causing a chemical reaction on a layer of the cdr with a
> laser
> which has nothing to do with the CDA format.
>
> everyone here wants to do it on the CHEAP
> the original poster wanted advice on a CD publishing sysytem
>
> does no one here listen?
> the original poster wanted advice on a CD publishing sysytem
>
> do you all run protools free and use sm57's for a matched stereo pair?
> it is cheaper that way.
>
> > you can pump out 120 discs per hour.
>
> troy here is why you keep getting business
> it is the quanity vs quality
> if you burn too fast
> the laser can not burn a clean 0 or 1
> and then it becomes blurred
> check with an audio archivist,
> this is a disaster waiting to happen.
>

LOL.....Now you've opened a whole new can of worms with the speed thing :-)
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 11:07:45 PM

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

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

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

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

- Logan
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 11:08:24 PM

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

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <qXJ8e.8482$h6.3349@tornado.texas.rr.com> lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com writes:
>
>
>>If you wanted to check them, why on earth would you check them by hand?
>>Why not just script it so that every CD is burned and then its contents
>>are ripped back to WAV files (or whatever format) which are then
>>compared against the original to make sure they're bit perfect?

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

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

- Logan
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 2:26:42 AM

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

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

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

- Logan
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 6:14:15 PM

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

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:26:42 GMT, Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com>
wrote:

> dale wrote:
>> how do you check your cdr's for c1 and c2 errors?
>
> If I wanted to check for c2 errors, I'd use "readcd -c2scan".
> I don't know of a convenient way to check for c1 errors.
>
> - Logan

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

Cheers.

James
!