CD recorders
 

I'd like to buy an audio CD recorder. I already have a Pioneer PDR509 and
was thinking of a PDR609. However it seems this is no longer available. So
can anyone suggest an alternative that is still on sale? (Or is the PDR609
still around?)

Having had a search on the web I have the impression that Marantz, Sony,
Yamaha, and Denon may do CD recorders. However the models I've found
details of are all either:

1) CDR and HD

2) Dual drive

I don't want to 'clone' CDs. Nor do I really need a HD - although I might
go for that option if I can't find my preference which is simply for a
machine that works as the PDR509 or 609...

So, any models people can recommend?

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.

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.

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

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:
I'd like to buy an audio CD recorder. I already have a Pioneer PDR509
and was thinking of a PDR609. However it seems this is no longer
available. So can anyone suggest an alternative that is still on
sale? (Or is the PDR609 still around?)

Having had a search on the web I have the impression that Marantz,
Sony, Yamaha, and Denon may do CD recorders. However the models I've
found details of are all either:

1) CDR and HD

2) Dual drive

I don't want to 'clone' CDs. Nor do I really need a HD - although I
might go for that option if I can't find my preference which is
simply for a machine that works as the PDR509 or 609...

So, any models people can recommend?

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.

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.

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

Slainte,

Jim

I've used HHB CDR-830 for a long time without any problems.

Rolo

CD recorders
 

Rolo Tomassi wrote:

I've used HHB CDR-830 for a long time without any problems.

I was just gonna suggest that myself - they're great!

--
The pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon; the vessel
with the pestle has the brew that is true.

CD recorders
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
I'd like to buy an audio CD recorder. I already have a Pioneer PDR509 and
was thinking of a PDR609. However it seems this is no longer available. So
can anyone suggest an alternative that is still on sale? (Or is the PDR609
still around?)

Having had a search on the web I have the impression that Marantz, Sony,
Yamaha, and Denon may do CD recorders. However the models I've found
details of are all either:

1) CDR and HD

2) Dual drive

I don't want to 'clone' CDs. Nor do I really need a HD - although I might
go for that option if I can't find my preference which is simply for a
machine that works as the PDR509 or 609...

So, any models people can recommend?


I had a NAD double CD recorder - worked fine except for curious, very
small, 'glitches' between tracks when copying CDs - shouldn't matter in
your case. Very quiet - no fan.

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:


I use a Yamaha HD1300, bought for the HD and analogue recordings.

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


It can do this according to the manual. The HD is split into 99 minutes
partitions; anything over that simply crosses over to another partion -
never tried it.

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.


You can indeed, but it's hardly intuitive. Ditto titles etc, although I
got a cheap serial-USB lead so I can do it on a (Windows) computer,
yippee. I'll test it to see if you like.

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 makes occasional clicks, and a mild mechanical hum during use.
Not too bad, and the nature of these things. When the fan kicks in it is
noticeable, not fantastically loud though. Good ventilation around the
back means it rarely comes on, but bear in mind the unit is very deep,
so siting can be an issue.

Seems very well built, never missed a beat, copies are very good. But I
don't use it as much as I might because the interface makes editing
tricky, or perhaps more accurately - difficult for me to remember.

It's been upgraded to a 250gb model (HD1500 - mine's a 160Gb, but disks
are easy to change, c.450UKP). If you're going this route I'd take a
look at the Cambridge HD CD recorder - although I think they're both
overpriced. HTH

Rob

CD recorders
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
I'd like to buy an audio CD recorder. I already have a Pioneer PDR509 and
was thinking of a PDR609. However it seems this is no longer available. So
can anyone suggest an alternative that is still on sale? (Or is the PDR609
still around?)

Having had a search on the web I have the impression that Marantz, Sony,
Yamaha, and Denon may do CD recorders. However the models I've found
details of are all either:

1) CDR and HD

2) Dual drive

I don't want to 'clone' CDs. Nor do I really need a HD - although I might
go for that option if I can't find my preference which is simply for a
machine that works as the PDR509 or 609...

So, any models people can recommend?

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.

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.

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

Slainte,

Jim

definately get something with a hard disk. After getting exasperated
mucking up(and hence wasting countless discs) when recording directly
onto a cd, I just use the computer these days, which enables me to edit
the files, save to mp3 if need be, etc etc.
Plus the unreliability, relative scarcity and expense of audio cd-r
discs means i hardly ever use my audio cd burner..... might be better
to invest in a decent sound card and big HDD for your PC instead..

CD recorders
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
I'd like to buy an audio CD recorder. I already have a Pioneer PDR509 and
was thinking of a PDR609. However it seems this is no longer available. So
can anyone suggest an alternative that is still on sale? (Or is the PDR609
still around?)

Having had a search on the web I have the impression that Marantz, Sony,
Yamaha, and Denon may do CD recorders. However the models I've found
details of are all either:

1) CDR and HD

2) Dual drive

I don't want to 'clone' CDs. Nor do I really need a HD - although I might
go for that option if I can't find my preference which is simply for a
machine that works as the PDR509 or 609...

So, any models people can recommend?

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.

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.

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

Slainte,

Jim

Pardon if I don't understand exactly what you want nor your conventions;
We do American English here, and I sometimes find that I don't quite get
the message from the UK.

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. I actually bought a VCR specifically to record a
program that comes on on Sunday morning at 4:00 AM. And then I
discovered that I'm located in the shadow of the broadcast signal and
can't receive acceptable audio from the station.

Some VCRs have been very sophisticated in their sound controls,
especially the better-grade machines. Dig it: you get six hours of
recording time. 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. The
fidelity of this type of VCR is so good that is should be able to make
an outstanding recording off the FM tuner at its slowest speed. The
signal goes down on the tape esentially as a video signal recorded in
FM. It's recorded in a helical pattern just like the video, not like the
low-fi video mono track, which is straight slow-speed analog sound.

What you do is connect the VCR's audio inputs as if it was a cassette
deck. You can send what you record out from the VCR to, let's say, a
stand-alone CD recorder or into your computer's sound inputs. There'll
be no picture.

Note that not every VCR will do this. The issue is the synch signal.
Some VCRs provide the signal themselves. Such a machine will work
perfectly. But other VCRs take their synch from the broadcast picture
signal and use it to control the tape movement. With a machine like
this, the music-only recording will be miserable. I can't tell you how
to select one type vs the other, but a repair person may know.

The best way to buy a really good older VCR is from a repair shop --
people abandon machines and the repairman is stuck with them after
having fixed them. Usually the "customer" didn't provide the remote
control, but often, an aftermarket remote control will work the VCR's
essential functions just fine. Now how do you find a VCR repair shop
that's still in business?

I'm saving my Samsung 1996 VCR with all the knobs on it, biding my time,
waiting and scheming.

Richard (in Richmond, California)

CD recorders
 

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?

--
*Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

CD recorders
 

"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.

--
Tony W
My e-mail address has no hyphen
- but please don't use it, reply to the group.

CD recorders
 

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. I actually bought a VCR specifically to record a
program that comes on on Sunday morning at 4:00 AM. And then I
discovered that I'm located in the shadow of the broadcast signal and
can't receive acceptable audio from the station.


I use the recorders to make CDRs from Cassettes and tapes of old radio
recordings as well as from FM (analogue) and DAB (digital input) and DTTV
(digital input). A VCR would not be much use for this, and would be
inconvenient I'm afraid.

FWIW I do have a DVD video recorder, and use that to record both TV and
radio via DTTV. But that does not produce CDs, and has no digital inputs...

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 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. I actually bought a VCR specifically to record a
program that comes on on Sunday morning at 4:00 AM. And then I
discovered that I'm located in the shadow of the broadcast signal and
can't receive acceptable audio from the station.



I use the recorders to make CDRs from Cassettes and tapes of old radio
recordings as well as from FM (analogue) and DAB (digital input) and DTTV
(digital input). A VCR would not be much use for this, and would be
inconvenient I'm afraid.

FWIW I do have a DVD video recorder, and use that to record both TV and
radio via DTTV. But that does not produce CDs, and has no digital inputs...

Slainte,

Jim


I think the most awesome way has to be a PC or Mac - it's simply the
easiest way to edit, title, store, archive, record and burn. If you
understand what they do (I don't) the processing effects seem quite
powerful. It's also far and away the cheapest, especially if you have a
computer already. The (old!) Mac Minis are being sold off for c.250UKP
(albeit rather basic - more RAM and an external USB soundcard might be
needed, plus monitor/kb) - an ideal little audio processing platform IMO.

Your route of enquiry is fine if you want to keep computers out of the
chain, perhaps for reasons of noise or clutter.

Rob

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.

CD recorders
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
I'd like to buy an audio CD recorder. I already have a Pioneer PDR509 and
was thinking of a PDR609. However it seems this is no longer available. So
can anyone suggest an alternative that is still on sale? (Or is the PDR609
still around?)

Having had a search on the web I have the impression that Marantz, Sony,
Yamaha, and Denon may do CD recorders. However the models I've found
details of are all either:

1) CDR and HD

2) Dual drive

I don't want to 'clone' CDs. Nor do I really need a HD - although I might
go for that option if I can't find my preference which is simply for a
machine that works as the PDR509 or 609...

So, any models people can recommend?

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.

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.

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

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

Maplin are currently offering the Yamaha DVR 9000H DVD and HD recorder for
just £169. Lots of info and testimonials on their website. Don't know if it
would fit your bill, but it's a cracker of a price.

Arfa

CD recorders
 

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
I'd like to buy an audio CD recorder. I already have a Pioneer PDR509 and
was thinking of a PDR609. However it seems this is no longer available.
So
can anyone suggest an alternative that is still on sale? (Or is the
PDR609
still around?)

Having had a search on the web I have the impression that Marantz, Sony,
Yamaha, and Denon may do CD recorders. However the models I've found
details of are all either:

1) CDR and HD

2) Dual drive

I don't want to 'clone' CDs. Nor do I really need a HD - although I might
go for that option if I can't find my preference which is simply for a
machine that works as the PDR509 or 609...

So, any models people can recommend?

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.

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.

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

Slainte,

Jim

--
Maplin are currently offering the Yamaha DVR 9000H DVD and HD recorder for
just £169. Lots of info and testimonials on their website. Don't know if
it would fit your bill, but it's a cracker of a price.

Arfa
A machine frequently found in studios is the HHB BurnIt. Several versions
are available. I know of several locations where these are in daily use,
and have never heard of one failing. We bought ours from Turnkey in the UK
who can offer a good deal, and will not be undercut. I have no connection
with this firm. They can be contacted at:




Regards to all
Iain