CD recorders
 

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 13:48:14 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:


Also, if anyone has one of the Yamaha CDR + HD machines, can they comment
on how easy they are to use for the following type of process:

1) Make a long recording (i.e. 80 mins) from radio whilst unattended. Of
something like a R3 concert.

This is not a problem. You can record up to the capacity of the hard
disk as a single recording. However, as another poster has mentioned,
the recording is divided into 99 minute sections. Playback continues
uninterrupted across sections and recordings can be rearranged into
CD-sized 'discs' for burning.

The main problem is that the machine does not have a built-in timer
and you have to use an external one, set the HD1300 to record on
power-up and tell it how long to record for. It's doable, but is
fiddly and it is all too easy to make a careless mistake and lose a
recording.


2) Then edit the results (both to set track starts/ends to divide the
recording, and the remove unwanted sections) and write to one or more CDRs.

This can be done. It helps greatly to connect a TV to the video output
because the operation is a little too complex to perform using the
built-in display.


Also on if the HD make any audible mechanical noises whilst recording or
replaying. (Ditto for any fans if the machine has them.)

The HD does make some noise. It is not generally objectional. The unit
does contain a fan, but this only comes on after some hours of use. It
is probably too noisy for serious classical music listening.

I used to use the HD1300 quite extensively for time-shifting radio
programmes for transcription to CDs to listen to in the car. Since I
put a hard disk into my satellite receiver, I tend to use that for
recording and a PC (running Linux) for editing and burning CDs.

Note also that the HD1300 case is very deep compared to most Hi-Fi
equipment. This can make it difficult to mount on a shelf against a
wall. (Mine is less than ideally positioned in order to make its less
conspicuous because it sticks out so far from my Hi-Fi shelving.)

HTH.


--
Chris Isbell
Southampton, UK

CD recorders
 

Chris Isbell wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 13:48:14 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:



Also, if anyone has one of the Yamaha CDR + HD machines, can they comment
on how easy they are to use for the following type of process:




2) Then edit the results (both to set track starts/ends to divide the
recording, and the remove unwanted sections) and write to one or more CDRs.


This can be done. It helps greatly to connect a TV to the video output
because the operation is a little too complex to perform using the
built-in display.


I didn't know there's any graphical editing thing ... ?!

Rob

CD recorders
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Richard Steinfeld wrote:

The most awesome way that I know of to record off the air is with a
Video Cassette Recorder (hi-fi, stereo). The drill is that you leave
your radio tuner on and use the VCR's timer to switch on the recording
at the preferred time.


How do you listen to these in the car?

My suggestion is for an intermediate medium. Sorry; I forgot to explain
this. You've got to transfer the audio to another medium -- cassette
tape or CD, MP3, OGG-Vorbis (insert medium here). But the Video
recording may be so good that the sound will withstand the transfer just
fine, so long as you don't want audiophile results.

Richard

CD recorders
 

Tony wrote:
"Richard Steinfeld" wrote in message
...

The most awesome way that I know of to record off the air is with a Video
Cassette Recorder (hi-fi, stereo).

...

The fidelity is outstanding, just a couple of dB short of the Compact
Disk's S-N ratio. In my experience, the FM station does not exist that
comes anywhere near transmitting this dynamic range.


Very practical. But there is fairly heavy companding applied to hide the
head switching noise so I suspect they might not be that good for some type
of material, for example high quality piano music. And the only way to edit
is to transfer to another medium.


All true. With transmitted broadcast classical music, I didn't hear any
detriment -- but on one program, I found audio artifacts in the picture!
The sound of a slamming gate must have been overmodulated (the end of
_The Life and Crimes of William Palmer_ (did I remember correctly?).

The piano example would be a good test, I agree. I'm not suggesting this
for audiophile work, but who knows. I've never seen this used. Lack of
experience doesn't prevent from making grand prounouncements.

Richard

CD recorders
 

Adrian C wrote:
Richard Steinfeld wrote:

The piano example would be a good test, I agree. I'm not suggesting
this for audiophile work, but who knows. I've never seen this used.
Lack of experience doesn't prevent from making grand prounouncements.

Richard


I have an audio recording of a TV programme (C* D* in concert) recorded
one Christmas.

Analogue TV Broadcast, sound over NICAM - Video'ed to crap JVC VHS Hifi
recorder - Audio replayed to portable MD recorder (Sony MZR-30) -
Edited on hifi MD Recorder Sony (MDS-JB920) - S/PDIF'd to Audio Excel
AV510 soundcard - burnt to CD on a 2-speed philips burner. C* D* still
sounds amazing even through that jumble....

(Got things 'better' sorted now...)


We must have different standards in our two countries. For example, I
couldn't understand half of what you wrote. I doubt that we've got any
over-the-air TV that offers an audio stream that aren't compromised. FM
is pretty bad, too, with "psychoacoustic" compression applied. Our FM
"pre-emphasis" (equalization) curve is so steep that severe compression
needs to be applied in order for a station to achieve their desired
signal map to display to the advertisers. Classical music is usually the
most stringent test of reproduction, and we've got almost none of that.
On stations that broadcast popular music, the dynamic range in the US is
2-3 dB.

Many years ago, I was broadcasting on a classical music FM station. Our
audio was so noisy and distorted that I hardly ever monitored the signal
over-the-air. I monitored via the station's internal bus circuits,
checking every half hour to see if the transmitter was still working or
if it had conked out altogether. I own three good FM tuners, and they're
all packed up in closets (one is a Creek).

Richard

CD recorders
 

In article , Richard Steinfeld
wrote:
Adrian C wrote:



I have an audio recording of a TV programme (C* D* in concert)
recorded one Christmas.


We must have different standards in our two countries. For example, I
couldn't understand half of what you wrote. I doubt that we've got any
over-the-air TV that offers an audio stream that aren't compromised.

Afraid I don't know what country you are in. However the audio here on some
TV can be quite good. (See a forthcoming issue of 'Hi Fi News' for some
data on this. :-) )


FM is pretty bad, too, with "psychoacoustic" compression applied.

IIUC BBC R3 here vary their use of this. Can sound good at times IMHO.


Our FM "pre-emphasis" (equalization) curve is so steep that severe
compression needs to be applied in order for a station to achieve their
desired signal map to display to the advertisers.

In the UK it is 50microseconds, and in the USA 75microseconds. So from your
comment I assume you are probably in the USA - or at least outwith the UK.

Classical music is usually the most stringent test of reproduction, and
we've got almost none of that. On stations that broadcast popular music,
the dynamic range in the US is 2-3 dB.

Bit like many of the non-R3 stations here.

Many years ago, I was broadcasting on a classical music FM station. Our
audio was so noisy and distorted that I hardly ever monitored the signal
over-the-air. I monitored via the station's internal bus circuits,
checking every half hour to see if the transmitter was still working or
if it had conked out altogether. I own three good FM tuners, and they're
all packed up in closets (one is a Creek).

Here it is quite possible to get excellent results from R3 FM, although
they do use level compression to a marked extent at times. FWIW a while ago
I compared 20 year old recordings from R3 to recent ones, and the older
ones do give tend to a noticably less level-compressed sound, and show
wider dynamic range distributions than many more recent R3 broadcasts.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

CD recorders
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:

We must have different standards in our two countries. For example, I
couldn't understand half of what you wrote. I doubt that we've got any
over-the-air TV that offers an audio stream that aren't compromised.


Afraid I don't know what country you are in. However the audio here on some
TV can be quite good. (See a forthcoming issue of 'Hi Fi News' for some
data on this. :-) )

Greetings from the Kingdom of BushAmerica.

FM is pretty bad, too, with "psychoacoustic" compression applied.


IIUC BBC R3 here vary their use of this. Can sound good at times IMHO.


So they really vary their compression?
I went through a factory where they make these "psychoacoustics" boxes a
few years ago; I didn't recall seeing adjustments on them. But I wasn't
looking either.


Our FM "pre-emphasis" (equalization) curve is so steep that severe
compression needs to be applied in order for a station to achieve their
desired signal map to display to the advertisers.

In the UK it is 50microseconds, and in the USA 75microseconds. So from your
comment I assume you are probably in the USA - or at least outwith the UK.

Yup. USA. I believe that Canada shares the same preemphasis; same 120v
60 Hz electricity too.


Classical music is usually the most stringent test of reproduction, and
we've got almost none of that. On stations that broadcast popular music,
the dynamic range in the US is 2-3 dB.

Bit like many of the non-R3 stations here.

What are "R3" and "non-R3?"

Many years ago, I was broadcasting on a classical music FM station. Our
audio was so noisy and distorted that I hardly ever monitored the signal
over-the-air. I monitored via the station's internal bus circuits,
checking every half hour to see if the transmitter was still working or
if it had conked out altogether. I own three good FM tuners, and they're
all packed up in closets (one is a Creek).

The reason why I almost never listen to FM is because here in the San
Francisco area, we have only one classical broadcaster, a commercial
station that doesn't play complete works, but a single movement of
something, then a loud blasting commercial, then a single movement of
something else. Who needs this? To be fair, we do have an excellent
non-commercial jazz station which I like. But in general, there's almost
no reason for me to use a fine FM tuner. Our public stations have
changed format to all news and features (two-four BBC feeds are carried
at times).

Here it is quite possible to get excellent results from R3 FM, although
they do use level compression to a marked extent at times. FWIW a while ago
I compared 20 year old recordings from R3 to recent ones, and the older
ones do give tend to a noticably less level-compressed sound, and show
wider dynamic range distributions than many more recent R3 broadcasts.


The concept of "psychoacoustics" applied to broadcast music is
interesting. I don't think there's much psychoacoustics applied here (I
did graduate study in music psychology and what I've learned about FM
has almost nothing in common). However, what there is may be
sophisticated in application. The intent is to make the music as uniform
in level as possible, while still incorporating psychologocal "cues" (my
word) of dynamics and stereo separation.

To my ear, what I hear is "companding." In the mix, sound that gets
louder in one aspect is subtracted in level from another aspect. In
popular music, the traditional way that this is applied is that when the
singer is singing, the band is "ducked" under. This gives the singer
consistent punch through the background; the singer always has
prominence. This is different from many old opera recordings, in which
the singers are simply recorded way too loud so that you can't make out
what the orchestra is doing.

It's smooth and seamless. But now I'm talking about the recording and
remastering process here, and in broadcasting, it's different since the
processing is applied to already-mixed music. So, let's say that we've
got a few notes on high chimes on the left channel; we'll goose the
chimes maybe 2 db more, and simultaneously remove 6 db from the midrange
of the right channel to keep the mixture within legal modulation limits.
We've removed more from the midrange because of the pre-emphasis: 2 db
in the highs is a lot more power than 2 db in the mids.

The effect upon this listener is that there's something wrong with the
sound. In pop music, it almost doesn't matter. I mean, Top-40 material
has almost always bored or irritated me (the trouble is that I know too
much about music -- I hear the cheap tricks). In what classical we have
here in the US (which is next to nothing; really nothing in most of the
country), there's a certain "mushing" -- a patina of mush over the sound
-- an absence of true clarity.

Richard Steinfeld

CD recorders
 

In article , Richard Steinfeld
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


FM is pretty bad, too, with "psychoacoustic" compression applied.


IIUC BBC R3 here vary their use of this. Can sound good at times IMHO.


So they really vary their compression? I went through a factory where
they make these "psychoacoustics" boxes a few years ago; I didn't
recall seeing adjustments on them. But I wasn't looking either.

It is certainly my impression that the amount of level compression on BBC
R3 FM does vary with time of day, etc. So mid-day or 'drive time'
broadcasts seem more compressed than 'live' evening concerts. I think
others who listen to R3 FM also have this experience.

FWIW I also have the impression that the BBC do not apply the same amount
of level compression to DAB R3 (and presumably DTTV R3) as they do to FM. I
am investigating this by measurement, but I don't have all the result s as
yet.

However I think that most other UK stations (inc BBC ones) tend to apply
level compression rather more than on R3!




Classical music is usually the most stringent test of reproduction,
and we've got almost none of that. On stations that broadcast popular
music, the dynamic range in the US is 2-3 dB.

Bit like many of the non-R3 stations here.

What are "R3" and "non-R3?"

"R3" means BBC Radio 3. This is the BBC UK rqdio station/channel for
'classical music'

"non-R3" means "all the UK stations other than BBC R3". :-)

FWIW We have 'Classic FM' which broadcasts what you'd expect from the name.
But tends to apply rather more level compression than R3. Most other
stations tend to be speech or various forms of 'popular music'. Generally
heavily compressed.



The reason why I almost never listen to FM is because here in the San
Francisco area, we have only one classical broadcaster, a commercial
station that doesn't play complete works, but a single movement of
something, then a loud blasting commercial, then a single movement of
something else. Who needs this?

I'd agree. I would also not bother to listen to such a station.

[snip]

To my ear, what I hear is "companding." In the mix, sound that gets
louder in one aspect is subtracted in level from another aspect. In
popular music, the traditional way that this is applied is that when the
singer is singing, the band is "ducked" under. This gives the singer
consistent punch through the background; the singer always has
prominence. This is different from many old opera recordings, in which
the singers are simply recorded way too loud so that you can't make out
what the orchestra is doing.

[snip]

The effect upon this listener is that there's something wrong with the
sound. In pop music, it almost doesn't matter. I mean, Top-40 material
has almost always bored or irritated me (the trouble is that I know too
much about music -- I hear the cheap tricks). In what classical we have
here in the US (which is next to nothing; really nothing in most of the
country), there's a certain "mushing" -- a patina of mush over the sound
-- an absence of true clarity.

I tend to find that when the level compression on 'classical' music is
excessive it just makes the result 'boring' as the dynamic contrasts are
removed. Most absurd example in my experience is Ravel's Bolero on Classic
FM. This *should* slowly grow in sound level and intensity from start to
finish. But on Classic FM it remains at pretty much the same perceived
level throughout - which rather defeats the main purpose of the work!

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

CD recorders
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Richard Steinfeld
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


FM is pretty bad, too, with "psychoacoustic" compression applied.


IIUC BBC R3 here vary their use of this. Can sound good at times IMHO.


So they really vary their compression? I went through a factory where
they make these "psychoacoustics" boxes a few years ago; I didn't
recall seeing adjustments on them. But I wasn't looking either.

It is certainly my impression that the amount of level compression on BBC
R3 FM does vary with time of day, etc. So mid-day or 'drive time'
broadcasts seem more compressed than 'live' evening concerts. I think
others who listen to R3 FM also have this experience.

FWIW I also have the impression that the BBC do not apply the same amount
of level compression to DAB R3 (and presumably DTTV R3) as they do to FM.
I
am investigating this by measurement, but I don't have all the result s as
yet.

However I think that most other UK stations (inc BBC ones) tend to apply
level compression rather more than on R3!




Classical music is usually the most stringent test of reproduction,
and we've got almost none of that. On stations that broadcast popular
music, the dynamic range in the US is 2-3 dB.

Bit like many of the non-R3 stations here.

What are "R3" and "non-R3?"

"R3" means BBC Radio 3. This is the BBC UK rqdio station/channel for
'classical music'

"non-R3" means "all the UK stations other than BBC R3". :-)

FWIW We have 'Classic FM' which broadcasts what you'd expect from the
name.
But tends to apply rather more level compression than R3. Most other
stations tend to be speech or various forms of 'popular music'. Generally
heavily compressed.



The reason why I almost never listen to FM is because here in the San
Francisco area, we have only one classical broadcaster, a commercial
station that doesn't play complete works, but a single movement of
something, then a loud blasting commercial, then a single movement of
something else. Who needs this?

I'd agree. I would also not bother to listen to such a station.

[snip]

To my ear, what I hear is "companding." In the mix, sound that gets
louder in one aspect is subtracted in level from another aspect. In
popular music, the traditional way that this is applied is that when the
singer is singing, the band is "ducked" under. This gives the singer
consistent punch through the background; the singer always has
prominence. This is different from many old opera recordings, in which
the singers are simply recorded way too loud so that you can't make out
what the orchestra is doing.

[snip]

The effect upon this listener is that there's something wrong with the
sound. In pop music, it almost doesn't matter. I mean, Top-40 material
has almost always bored or irritated me (the trouble is that I know too
much about music -- I hear the cheap tricks). In what classical we have
here in the US (which is next to nothing; really nothing in most of the
country), there's a certain "mushing" -- a patina of mush over the sound
-- an absence of true clarity.

I tend to find that when the level compression on 'classical' music is
excessive it just makes the result 'boring' as the dynamic contrasts are
removed. Most absurd example in my experience is Ravel's Bolero on Classic
FM. This *should* slowly grow in sound level and intensity from start to
finish. But on Classic FM it remains at pretty much the same perceived
level throughout - which rather defeats the main purpose of the work!

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Jim,

Radio 3 use the Optimod on FM during the day, and have it effectively turned
off during the evening. The Orban 8400 which is used by Radio 3 has the
ability to change the amount of processing both remote-controlled and on a
time basis. It is possible (but I don't know this for sure) that Radio 3 is
compressed more heavily during "drive times", less so during the rest of the
day, and not at all in the evening. Currently, Radio 3 on digital platforms
is not being processed, but this may change at any time.

S.

S.

CD recorders
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Richard Steinfeld
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


FM is pretty bad, too, with "psychoacoustic" compression applied.


IIUC BBC R3 here vary their use of this. Can sound good at times IMHO.


So they really vary their compression? I went through a factory where
they make these "psychoacoustics" boxes a few years ago; I didn't
recall seeing adjustments on them. But I wasn't looking either.

It is certainly my impression that the amount of level compression on BBC
R3 FM does vary with time of day, etc. So mid-day or 'drive time'
broadcasts seem more compressed than 'live' evening concerts. I think
others who listen to R3 FM also have this experience.

FWIW I also have the impression that the BBC do not apply the same amount
of level compression to DAB R3 (and presumably DTTV R3) as they do to FM.
I
am investigating this by measurement, but I don't have all the result s as
yet.

However I think that most other UK stations (inc BBC ones) tend to apply
level compression rather more than on R3!




Classical music is usually the most stringent test of reproduction,
and we've got almost none of that. On stations that broadcast popular
music, the dynamic range in the US is 2-3 dB.

Bit like many of the non-R3 stations here.

What are "R3" and "non-R3?"

"R3" means BBC Radio 3. This is the BBC UK rqdio station/channel for
'classical music'

"non-R3" means "all the UK stations other than BBC R3". :-)

FWIW We have 'Classic FM' which broadcasts what you'd expect from the
name.
But tends to apply rather more level compression than R3. Most other
stations tend to be speech or various forms of 'popular music'. Generally
heavily compressed.



The reason why I almost never listen to FM is because here in the San
Francisco area, we have only one classical broadcaster, a commercial
station that doesn't play complete works, but a single movement of
something, then a loud blasting commercial, then a single movement of
something else. Who needs this?

I'd agree. I would also not bother to listen to such a station.

[snip]

To my ear, what I hear is "companding." In the mix, sound that gets
louder in one aspect is subtracted in level from another aspect. In
popular music, the traditional way that this is applied is that when the
singer is singing, the band is "ducked" under. This gives the singer
consistent punch through the background; the singer always has
prominence. This is different from many old opera recordings, in which
the singers are simply recorded way too loud so that you can't make out
what the orchestra is doing.

[snip]

The effect upon this listener is that there's something wrong with the
sound. In pop music, it almost doesn't matter. I mean, Top-40 material
has almost always bored or irritated me (the trouble is that I know too
much about music -- I hear the cheap tricks). In what classical we have
here in the US (which is next to nothing; really nothing in most of the
country), there's a certain "mushing" -- a patina of mush over the sound
-- an absence of true clarity.

I tend to find that when the level compression on 'classical' music is
excessive it just makes the result 'boring' as the dynamic contrasts are
removed. Most absurd example in my experience is Ravel's Bolero on Classic
FM. This *should* slowly grow in sound level and intensity from start to
finish. But on Classic FM it remains at pretty much the same perceived
level throughout - which rather defeats the main purpose of the work!

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Jim,

Radio 3 use the Optimod on FM during the day, and have it effectively turned
off during the evening. The Orban 8400 which is used by Radio 3 has the
ability to change the amount of processing both remote-controlled and on a
time basis. It is possible (but I don't know this for sure) that Radio 3 is
compressed more heavily during "drive times", less so during the rest of the
day, and not at all in the evening. Currently, Radio 3 on digital platforms
is not being processed, but this may change at any time.


S.

S.