I am more of a in betweener than the choices you made available. I am one who prefers to see cds the way they were meant to be seen...bought from the store with their original artwork.....but.....

sometimes it doesn't hurt when a friend nudges you toward a band you may have never considered.

I only burn albums that are imposible to get in my country or some that are ridiculous expensive, a few months ago I payed 36 bucks a piece for Japanese editions of No Earthly Connection and Criminal Record both by Rick Wakeman, but that's my limit.

Last week a guy from a store offered me Dark Side of the Moon (Because my CD fell to the floor) for 25 bucks (Buying it by Internet including Peruvian tax would be about US$ 30) so I decided I had already payed too many times for the same album, so I burned the copy I had in the PC.

Iván

I dont burn albums myself, although I've had plenty burnt for me by friends.

Someone burnt an album for me recently so I could get a taste for the artists music. If I like what I hear, I'm likely to go out and buy all the artists work anyway, so I dont beat myself up over it.

In fact I spend huge amounts of money on CD's and vinyl anway, so I like to think it all balances out in the end..

I burn lots of CD-R's.I also have over 500 bought CDs and I feel I have contributed sufficient funds to the greedy record companies.

I have a HiFi CD recorder as well as my PC. The direct copies I make on my HIFI CD Recorder are virtually indistinguishable sonically from the originals and I can perceive the difference between these copies and those made on a PC.

Many of the CD's I burn now are taken directly from MP3s and converted to CD playable format (wav compatible) using Nero. The quality is obviously not as good as a standard CD ( of course most of my friends cannot hear any difference) but is barely "acceptable"  when played on a revealing seperates HiFi system. Converting MP3's is very useful for making compilation CD's to play on my car's CD player (although I had an MP3 capable player in my last car).I use printable CDR's(£15 for 100 Ritek) in my PC and can print the label directly on to the CD using an Epson R200 printer (@£80, though I got it in a PC world sale for £69.99)which has an insert for printing CDs- the final result looks really cool and many people cant distinguish them from an original! I very rarely burn full albums these days, usually compilation "best ofs" for friends I want to convert to the prog cause.

A big thank you to Leo (beau heem) BTW !!!

and Useful..........when you gonna open the floodgates again?

goose wrote: Reed Lover wrote: I f the quality of the copy is nigh on perfect why prefer the original? The music is more important than the packaging. The packaging is a marketing tool. You can get the lyrics off the bands website or fansite. Just because. To slightly justify it, you say the music is more important, but that doesn't make the packaging totally irrelevant. I'm a (small-scale, thus far) collector of CDs and soon vinyl, so I don't want a shelf full of copies. The only CDs I burn are bootlegs, internet-only releases and occaisionally rare/OOP ones that I just can't get hold of.

What do you think I am trying to justify Goose?

Why do you not want a shelf full of copies if they look and sound like the real thing?

Like Reed, I burn stuff I already own - vinyl to CD etc, CDs to Cd compilation for use in the car. I used to have a mini-disc deck and cd autochanger in the last car but now have just a cd changer so i have no compunction about burning stuff I own to compilations for portability.

But on the mp3 thing - if I hear tracks I like I'll download em, burn em and road test em in the car to confirm my liking - then i'll buy the album.

I did this with PFM here on the site - downloading their stuff, burning it and then ordering their first 3 albums from Laser's Edge. Thus I feel I've done the band a favour by downloading and burning their music illegally, cause I went and gave them cash for it in the end.

The stuff I don't end up liking - well I just bin the burned CDRs

Of course, I have a job (however poorly paid) and can afford to just oder up a bunch of CDs on a whim - it ain't like that for high school students or the unemployed. Indeed, I seem to remember in my dim and distant youth having an entire drawer full of illegally recorded cassette duplicates of friends' albums.

And despite all the Home Taping is Killing Music nonsense back then, the music industry didn't spontaneously combust now did it....

Metropolis wrote: Reed Lover wrote: I burn lots of CD-R's.I also have over 500 bought CDs and I feel I have contributed sufficient funds to the greedy record companies. How'd a 16 yr old afford all that? I'm so poor

I'm not called Don Deluego either.......

Metropolis wrote: Reed Lover wrote: I burn lots of CD-R's.I also have over 500 bought CDs and I feel I have contributed sufficient funds to the greedy record companies. How'd a 16 yr old afford all that? I'm so poor

Dang Reed....you look terrible for 16.

Metropolis wrote: So I guess all that "info" in his profile is bull then?

Username:	Reed Lover
Avatar:
Group:	Senior Member
Account Status:	Active
Online Status:	Online
Real Name:	Don Deluago Di Nascimento
Joined:	16 July 2004
Last Visit:	30 January 2005
Posts:	2976 [15.03 posts per day]
Location:	Sao Tome and Principe
Date of Birth:	01 February 1989
Homepage:	http://publicoexecutiones.satome/ - http://publicoexecutiones.satome
Occupation:	Urineextractor
Interests:	Naval gazing

Great homepage and occupation Metropolis

Wow, Reed. You're a Urine Extractor and you don't even use your hands... You must be popular.

Metropolis wrote: So I guess all that "info" in his profile is bull then?

Reed is full of bull Metropolis and no matter how much money a person has it doesn't justify paying well over the odds as we do here in the U.K for new releases so burn to your heart's content is my motto.

I also have a hi-fi cd recoder and agree with Reed Lover of the sound qualty of both types of cd-r. I don't think a computer-burnt cd pays as well or sounds as good.

I don't tend to burn full Cds , because I would rather own the real thing . As a matter of fact I have bought the vynil, the first cd edition and the re-mastered (mini Lp) edition of Nursery Cryme but got rid of the first cd as a gift to someone who did not know it(and now loves Genesis) .

However I burn Cds from vinyls that are not available as such (Maneige or many other Quebec prog yet still only in vinyl) .

I also burn Cds of stuff I will never buy and for example make compilation of mid 70's Santana albums because only two or three tracks are worthy of keeping so I gather them up on one compilation. Of course , those cds copied come from friends , libraries or my own copy which I get rid of once in the compilation. this liberates shelf space but is generally not financially rewarding because used cds are too low prices.

Rare and difficult to find (and often tooooo expensive) can also pass on my recorder.

But I do have over seven hundred legal cds as well as have bought a few thousands vinyls (sometimes used), so I consider myself having paid muy dues to the recording industry.

There's no difference between a copied CD and a bought one - you're simply transferring 1s and 0s, so there cannot be, if you burn uncompressed audio data.

As soon as you start to encode to mp3 or wma, then your music loses quality, as all compression algorithms are lossy to some extent.

I burn CDs of the vinyl I buy so that I can listen to it at work (I don't get much of a chance at home). There is a HUGE difference between a first press vinyl LP and a CD, however. Digital recordings are accurate, but not the same as analogue recordings in the same way that digital pictures are accurate - but you can usually tell that they're digital if you look hard enough (play "spot the artefact").

It's OK for aural wallpaper at work tho' - and it means I don't overplay the plastic!

There is enivitably some loss of information when the Cd is copied.

How little depends on the quality of the components used.

Uncompressed data: you are basically right but the difference lies in the depth of the music. If you have real good speakers (B&W or equivalent ), you will hear some elements more upfront, with the legal copies , a very slight difference with Hi-fi burned cdr, a noticable difference with PC-burned cdr, and not even worth talking aboutother digital techniques.

Don't get me wrong , I am no hi-fi integrist and do not spend fortunes into my hi-fi. i don't lose sleep over a burnt cdr slight loss of depth.

goose wrote: Reed Lover wrote: There is enivitably some loss of information when the Cd is copied. How little depends on the quality of the components used. How come then, however high a generation copy you have of a data CD, it will still work perfectly normally (since it's the same process as copying an audio CD).

maybe, but you always lose some data, however tiny, during the reproduction process.

Max? C*RT?

Jim Garten wrote: Certif1ed wrote: I burn CDs of the vinyl I buy so that I can listen to it at work (I don't get much of a chance at home). There is a HUGE difference between a first press vinyl LP and a CD, however. Digital recordings are accurate, but not the same as analogue recordings in the same way that digital pictures are accurate - but you can usually tell that they're digital if you look hard enough (play "spot the artefact"). It's OK for aural wallpaper at work tho' - and it means I don't overplay the plastic! I have to admit to being something of a computer simpleton here, Cert - I have heard it is possible to copy vinyl to CD, but have never known how this is done. I assume you'll need specialised software, and you say there is a "huge difference" in quality. There are many of my old vinyl albums I'd love to get on CD, but not all of them are commercially available these days (or if they are, they're exorbitantly priced). Coupla questions, then: 1 - What is the physical process of transferring Vinyl to CD? 2 - What is the best software to use? 3 (and probably most importantly) - how good is the resultant recording; I know this can be a subjective opinion, but I'd value your views - I do have a good hi-fi system, and can be very critical of recording quality.....?

1.Given that your record deck is connected to your amplifier in the normal way and doesnt have an optical -digital output:

You need to connect your amp to the inputs on your soundcard with rca cables (aka;phono to phono)although they dont need to be expensive, spending a few extra quid can make some difference.

2. I use Nero Burning Suite 6.0 (£30 if you shop around) which comes with Nero Wave Editor. Wave Editor has clear instructions on how to transfer from Vinyl to PC, "clean" the recording (removes the pops etc) and create a CD or MP3.

3.Quality "acceptable" - a very subjective term, but I have pretty decent amp and speakers and I dont dance for joy when I hear my own CD version of the original vinyl, nor do I want to sling the CD across the room in frustration. Great as a back up, but obviously not as good as the original.

Reed's setup will do the job fine - I normally MiniDisc my vinyl, then transfer the MD Data to the PC so I can burn it to CD... Yes, I know MD compresses - I don't own a HiFi CD burner, and my computers are upstairs, while my HiFi is downstairs.

For more accurate reproduction, if you have a 24-bit soundcard capable of recording @96 or even 192 Khz, and a DVD burner (£40 these days...), DVD Audio is far more accurate than CD, and you'll get a better dynamic range (plus all the noise from your HiFi!).

It depends what you're going to play the CDs back on. If your CD player is mega-quality HiFi, you'll notice the difference immediately. If it's the car CD player, then it'll sound fine.

Oh - and goose is right - simply transferring a file to CD is lossless - it has to be because the CRC check would tell your computer that the two files are not the same. Try this; Create an Excel spreadsheet and stuff it with data until the file size is about 40Mb. Now copy it. Copy it again.

Does any data get lost?

I rest my case! 

So a directly copied CD doesn't lose anything - it's impossible, AFAIK - although I'm open to decent scientific persuasion.

How can a data file lose data without corrupting the file?

The only way the sound can be changed is to apply an algorithm to the data file, such as a codec - ie if you convert it from CDA to Wav and back again. A straight copy of the CDA can change nothing. I guess it depends on how the burning software operates - whether it unpacks and repacks the data before burning or not.

I use Nero 6 and haven't noticed any difference between copies and originals.

Certif1ed wrote: Oh - and goose is right - simply transferring a file to CD is lossless - it has to be because the CRC check would tell your computer that the two files are not the same. Try this; Create an Excel spreadsheet and stuff it with data until the file size is about 40Mb. Now copy it. Copy it again. Does any data get lost? I rest my case!  So a directly copied CD doesn't lose anything - it's impossible, AFAIK - although I'm open to decent scientific persuasion. How can a data file lose data without corrupting the file? The only way the sound can be changed is to apply an algorithm to the data file, such as a codec - ie if you convert it from CDA to Wav and back again. A straight copy of the CDA can change nothing. I guess it depends on how the burning software operates - whether it unpacks and repacks the data before burning or not. I use Nero 6 and haven't noticed any difference between copies and originals.

A perfect CD (ie no scratches, other damage etc) will be read perfectly by a perfect optical drive.The problem is that CD's and CD Drives are not perfect mediums (media?) for storing/tranferring data and different drives have different ways of dealing with large errors.Some drives take a guess (interpolate) on what the values should be based on the previous and following values.  Other drives just set the bytes to 0.  Some drives do a good job of reporting these conditions, while some others don't report any errors.  It is all up to the person who programmed the firmware in the drive.  You can see how many drives can give lots of errors in the final wav file but not report any errors to the extraction application.So it is down to the quality of the drive.

Suppose you extract the audio track from the copy, and it's an exact binary match of the track you wrote from your hard drive, but the CDs don't sound quite the same. What then?

Most people don't notice any difference between originals and duplicates. Some people notice subtle differences, some people notice huge differences; on better CD players, the differences are harder to hear. Some say CD-R is better, some say worse. While it's true that "bits are bits", there "are" reasons why CD-Rs may sound different even when the data matches exactly.

An excellent paper on the subject is "The Numerically-Identical CD Mystery: A Study in Perception versus Measurement" by Ian Dennis, Julian Dunn, and Doug Carson, submitted to the Audio Engineering Society (Preprint 4339, 101st AES convention). It's available for download in PDF form at http://www.prismsound.com/downloads/cdinvest.pdf - http://www.prismsound.com/downloads/cdinvest.pdf . The paper is primarily concerned with why pressed CDs created at different plants or with different methods sound different, but the observations are relevant to CD-R as well.

The conclusions in the paper suggest that low-frequency modulations in the disc affect the servo and motor electronics, causing distortion noticeable to a critical listener.

Reed Lover wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Oh - and goose is right - simply transferring a file to CD is lossless - it has to be because the CRC check would tell your computer that the two files are not the same. Try this; Create an Excel spreadsheet and stuff it with data until the file size is about 40Mb. Now copy it. Copy it again. Does any data get lost? I rest my case!  So a directly copied CD doesn't lose anything - it's impossible, AFAIK - although I'm open to decent scientific persuasion. How can a data file lose data without corrupting the file? The only way the sound can be changed is to apply an algorithm to the data file, such as a codec - ie if you convert it from CDA to Wav and back again. A straight copy of the CDA can change nothing. I guess it depends on how the burning software operates - whether it unpacks and repacks the data before burning or not. I use Nero 6 and haven't noticed any difference between copies and originals. A perfect CD (ie no scratches, other damage etc) will be read perfectly by a perfect optical drive.The problem is that CD's and CD Drives are not perfect mediums (media?) for storing/tranferring data and different drives have different ways of dealing with large errors.Some drives take a guess (interpolate) on what the values should be based on the previous and following values.  Other drives just set the bytes to 0.  Some drives do a good job of reporting these conditions, while some others don't report any errors.  It is all up to the person who programmed the firmware in the drive.  You can see how many drives can give lots of errors in the final wav file but not report any errors to the extraction application.So it is down to the quality of the drive. Suppose you extract the audio track from the copy, and it's an exact binary match of the track you wrote from your hard drive, but the CDs don't sound quite the same. What then? Most people don't notice any difference between originals and duplicates. Some people notice subtle differences, some people notice huge differences; on better CD players, the differences are harder to hear. Some say CD-R is better, some say worse. While it's true that "bits are bits", there "are" reasons why CD-Rs may sound different even when the data matches exactly. An excellent paper on the subject is "The Numerically-Identical CD Mystery: A Study in Perception versus Measurement" by Ian Dennis, Julian Dunn, and Doug Carson, submitted to the Audio Engineering Society (Preprint 4339, 101st AES convention). It's available for download in PDF form at http://www.prismsound.com/downloads/cdinvest.pdf - http://www.prismsound.com/downloads/cdinvest.pdf . The paper is primarily concerned with why pressed CDs created at different plants or with different methods sound different, but the observations are relevant to CD-R as well. The conclusions in the paper suggest that low-frequency modulations in the disc affect the servo and motor electronics, causing distortion noticeable to a critical listener.

Fascinating paper - I don't have time to read it all ATM, but I will.

I note in the first page it states; "The final digital data feeding the LBR is not precisely the PCM audio data from the pre-mastering studio; the PCM data is pre-encoded as 'EFM'information to allow the pits of the final disc to be successfully tracked and read by the player. The EFM coding process is not strictly deterministic, i.e. the same PCM data can be represented by different EFM patterns; the selection of the most appropriate pattern is determined by an algorithm in the encoder."

- this was the point I was making earlier about applying codec algorithms.

I'm not sure about the "Low frequency modulations...causing distortion" theory, as that would seem to necessarily involve altering the audio data somehow. I can see how it would affect analogue signals - but digital signals corrupt when they deteriorate (as in the artefacts you get on Digital TV or poorly compressed MPEG encoded files), and it's hard for me to see how a properly CRC'd file would not be affected such that a CD reader would be completely unable to read it, if the file was an exact binary copy.

"how a properly CRC'd file would not be affected such that a CD reader would be completely unable to read it, if the file was an exact binary copy."

I think it has something to do with how the drive interprets the signal-this "interpolation" issue.There is something there to read but it is slightly altered?

goose wrote: I've read the first three pages but it's now underneath a pile of work in my room. I'll get round to reading the rest when I have some more time.

Yes, get back to work !

Reed Lover wrote: ""interpolation" issue.

Is this some kind of scheme to have the world intregrated with the Poles?  or vise versa?  Are all the CD manufactures in on this?

An Example:

I just received my mail order bride from Poland to do my part in Interpolating the world.

Garion81 wrote: Reed Lover wrote: ""interpolation" issue.     Is this some kind of scheme to have the world intregrated with the Poles?  or vise versa?  Are all the CD manufactures in on this? An Example: I just received my mail order bride from Poland to do my part in Interpolating the world.

Interpolate or interpollinate ?

Reed Lover wrote: Garion81 wrote: Reed Lover wrote: ""interpolation" issue.     Is this some kind of scheme to have the world intregrated with the Poles?  or vise versa?  Are all the CD manufactures in on this? An Example: I just received my mail order bride from Poland to do my part in Interpolating the world. Interpolate or interpollinate ?

If it all comes out at the end of a Pole does it really matter what word you use?

Reed Lover wrote: Anyway, does Garion's Gal mind being called a "Polish Mail Order Bride"- or is it some kind of kinky role-playing game?

Haven't tried it with her yet but Hmmm you've given me an idea.  Having lunch with her in a few minutes will let you know.

Reed Lover wrote:

Well it wasn't like that but I did tell her about it. 

Certif1ed wrote: NERDY COMPUTER JOKE A byte walks into a bar and orders a pint. The bartender asks him "What's wrong?" The byte says "Parity error." The bartender nods and says "Yeah, I thought you looked a bit off."

That's so bad it's worth a report!

I will not make lame jokes ever again. I will not make lame jokes ever again. I will not make lame jokes ever again. I will Not make lame jokes ever again. I will not make lame jokes ever again. I will not make lame jokes ever again. I will not make lame jokes ever again. I will not make lame jokes ever again. I will check my spelling before posting from this day forth. I will not make lame jokes ever again. I don't like people making fun of my spelling. I will not make lame jokes ever again. I will not make lame jokes ever again.I will not make lame jokes ever again. I will not write more than forty times I will not make lame jokes ever again. I will not make lame jokes ever again. this is a lame joke. I will not make lame jokes ever again. I will; not make lame jokes ever again. the remotly crew will not make bad albums ever again. i will not make lame jokes ever again. *sigh* I will not make lame jokes ever again. I will not make lame jokes ever again. I will not make lame jokes ever again. I will Not make lame jokes ever again. I will not make lame jokes ever again. I will not make lame jokes ever again. I will not make lame jokes ever again. I will not make lame jokes ever again. I will check my spelling before posting from this day forth. I will not make lame jokes ever again. I don't like people making fun of my spelling. I will not make lame jokes ever again. I will not make lame jokes ever again.I will not make lame jokes ever again. I will not write more than forty times I will not make lame jokes ever again. I will not make lame jokes ever again. this is a lame joke. I will not make lame jokes ever again. I will; not make lame jokes ever again. the remotly crew will not make bad albums ever again. i will not make lame jokes ever again

tuxon wrote: The ministery of Bad Jokes hereby sanctions Cert to delete the aformentioned attempt to be funny and replace it with 100 lines saying "I will not make lame jokes ever again" The ministery of Bad Jokes issues the same sanction to Tuxon aswell, for this is not remotly funny.

Are you from the Remotly Crew?

similar principle to Re-Genesis ?

Report on Nerdy Computer Joke - for Dummies.

By Cert.

It has been suggested that the above joke is worthy of a report - so I have investigated the humourous aspects thoroughly, and would like to humbly submit the following report to my peers, especially those with limited knowledge of computers or computing terms - or anyone else with kidney problems.

It transpires that a "Byte" cannot possibly walk into a bar, since a byte is a representation of intangible data, which itself is not readable by the average computer user. Not to stray too far off-topic, and to accept that in a joke, a byte may indeed walk into a bar - as may other improbable entities, it is useful to the uninitiated to understand what a byte is in order to fully comprehend the humourous aspects of the joke posted above.

First, though, it's necessary to understand the reply of the byte to the bartender's assessment of its well-being. We can look no further than the giant of the computing world, the company Microsoft - source of the well-known joke that runs as follows;

Bill Gates heard about Hugh Grant's encounters with the famed lady of purchasable virtues, Divine. He therefore made an appointment with her that he might sample her services. Once business had concluded, he stated his appreciation thus;

"That was wonderful - I can see why you're called Divine".

To which the renowned good time girl replied;

"And I can see why you called your company Micro Soft..."

Mr Gates' wonderful company provides this clear and precise explanation of the term "parity";

The quality of sameness or equivalence, in the case of computers usually referring to an error-checking procedure in which the number of ones must always be the same — either even or odd — for each group of bits transmitted without error. If parity is checked on a per-character basis, the method is called vertical redundancy checking, or VRC; if its checked on a block-by-block basis, the method is called longitudinal redundancy checking, or LRC. In typical modem-to-modem communications, parity is one of the parameters that must be agreed upon by sending and receiving parties before transmission can take place. See also fault tolerance; stripe set; stripe sets with parity.

This also helpfully explains where the pun on the word "bit" was extruded - but does not fully explain the relevance to the byte. Fortunately, that is simple to explain; a byte comprises 8 bits.

Interestingly, but not at all relevant to this discussion, 4 bits are known as a nibble. It can be surmised that further humour can derived from these terms - but that discussion is outside the scope of this report, and, one might suggest, abuses the terms of reference.

Cert's alter-ego Duane Dibbley