In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:
Firstly, there is no cost of postage as articles for the blind is free.
Also if we went to digital we would ned an investment in.

TBH Brian, as I read your list of requirements I was reminded of the
saying, "The best is the enemy of the good." In this case that means that
if you are determined to wait for a system that meets *all* your
requirements then you have to settle down to many years (perhaps infinite)
before one that ticks all your boxes arrives. So you may have to compromise
if you actually want a system that works for as many people as possible in
a reasonable timescalke.

A digital recording system usable by all.

I assume here you mean *playback* by 'as many users as feasible'. Not that
they can all record.

A copying tower

That presimably isn't a cost problem as once installed you could use the
same system for many years. I guess even a decent computer that isn't
specialised for the task will let you do CDs at the rate of one ever few
mins. Bulk copiers will be faster and automated.


A problem is that unless you go mp3, you only get 80 mins on a cd, and
we get 90 on a tape.

Is that a really serious problem? Such that if it were the only factor
you'd refuse to change to CD?

Tapes are reusable,

So you could use CDRW instead of CDR. Like tape they'd cost more per disc,
but would be reusable. The drawback is probably reduced compatability
across all CD players. cf below. Plus they also tend to take longer per
disc to write.


You need a reusable format which can be copied fast. it has to be
reliable. One of the problems experienced by tns using cds is that some
simply fail. Very few tapes fail as long as you are careful that you do
not send out badly damaged ones.

My experience with CDR/CDRW is that very few *discs* 'fail' if you are
burning them with a decent writer/recorder. However the problem in my
experience is that the optical properties of a disk depend on *both* the
choice and use of writer *and* the brand of disc. And that some players can
play discs which others can't.

So in my case, if I use a particular writer at a particular speed, the TDK
CDRs it writes will play in CD player 'A' but not 'B'. Whereas the TDK
CDRWs play in 'B' but not 'A'. Similarly variations for other brands, etc.
But most *modern* CD players seem happier to play various brands, etc. My
'A' and 'B' players above are some years old.

I think your key problem is to identify a specific set of CD *players* that
have the features you decide you need. These would include compatability
with your specific choice of brand/type of CDR(W) (and writer) and perhaps
the 'resume' facility. (Which I am less confident than James is common for
CD players.)

I suspect you'd be better off taking James' suggestion of just putting up
to 99 track markers on the CD. It is trivially easy to divide recordings
like that. If you then can't find a player that lets a user know which
track they are on, I guess you could announce track number at the start of
some tracks to aid restarting.

The problem with wanting any brand of disc to play in any device is similar
to wanting mp3 and 'resume'. You end up making the player cost more or be
more complex to use, or end up with a class of 'approved' players that has
few - or no! - members.

You can certainly use mp3, and even use DVDR(W) as carriers. They'd give
you much longer playing times. But at the expense to the end-user of a more
complex and costly player. Although DVD players do tend to handle 'resume'
better for video I'm not sure how many do for LPCM or mp3 audio.

As the Editor said, "I don't want it good, I want it Thursday". :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html