CD Duplicator/Printer Q's

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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>

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[Troy]

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.
>
>
>
>

 

[Troy]

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.)

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Troy]

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.
>
>

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Troy]

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

 

[Troy]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Troy]

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.
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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