CD Duplicator/Printer Q's

[Guest]

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

 

[Troy]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Troy]

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

James Perrett <James.Perrett@soc.soton.ac.uk> wrote in message
newspspfnz5zy8tjbad@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.

 

[Troy]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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