In article , Derrick Fawsitt
writes
In message , Laurence Payne
writes
On Wed, 31 May 2006 09:26:01 +0100, Derrick Fawsitt
wrote:

Finally, up to now I have always used EAC, (Exact Audio Copy), but
although I found it did not let me down, I found the interface puzzling
every time I came back to it to make a copy.
You ask "why didn't I make a simple disk copy", that is exactly what I
set out to do so can you tell me the best way to do exactly that, mind
you, I have lost confidence in PC copies, hence my desire now, (having
lost my chance to get some good copies), to resort to a stand alone CD
burner or copier.
Sorry about all the rigmarole above but I felt it necessary to spell out
all the processes I went through and still ended up with no certain
copies of a lovely library of music.


The Yamaha CDR-HD1500 will work. But so will a properly working £20
burner on your computer. And the HD1500 is a very expensive solution,
with considerable disadvantages over a computer.
But won't it also record from DAB radio, in my case I would find it so
useful for recording disks and concerts from the Proms etc.

Yes indeed.. Though its such a shame that the BBC can't use some higher
bitrates on their flagship classical station, even on satellite where
bandwidth isn't a problem at all.

You might be interested in a digital satellite system Derrick, at least
some European broadcasters think its worthwhile. Bayern Klassik 4 is
excellent as is France Musique both with first class production
standards, as well as some others from Europe inc some useful Jazz
stations)


Even if your French and German isn't as good as it might be the music
conforms to an international language)


FWIW can't say I've ever had any problems burning audio CD's just using
Nero and a bog standard PC CD writer!. I have a Terratec balanced in's
and out's card in the PC which hooks up to the Audiolab system and
thats works fine. Some stuff is kept on the home musicke server system
and what's used more often is burnt to CD. What I do find is that the
slower you cook 'em the better the finished result. Not that I need to
do them fast, just let the machine get on with that whilst doing
something else. Best I've found to record to Hard drive first then edit
with Cool Edit or Audacity to take out the bits you don't really need to
hear, especially Prom broadcast's!.......
--
Tony Sayer

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 01:26:27 +0100, Derrick Fawsitt
wrote:

Just one question that if I can have answered I might be prepared to
have a go again, what is a really safe speed to clone an audio CD and

I have no problems with modern media as long as I keep below 20X. If
you buy "audio" blanks they will be optimised for a slower speed,
maybe 4X.


also, I don't mind spending some money on fitting the Rolls Royce of CD
burners so that I can feel confident, I know it should not be necessary
but I need the boost. Can you give me a name and model number and once
again, I am so grateful to yourself and Rob for your help.

Even a year ago I'd have pointed you at Plextor as the only fully
reliable brand. But I really don't think you have to worry too much
now. I've been getting very good results from Pioneer 110D (now 111D)
units. Around £25 from http://svp.co.uk And they write DVDs as well.

From the same source I get Datawrite Printable (52x) 80 Minute CDR
blank media in boxes of 600 for £66. (They'll sell in smaller
quantities too :-)

The program you use isn't critical. But having a Verify feature is
nice. If you haven't got one, you can buy a copy of Nero along with
the burner for a fiver.

Other suppliers offer similar deals. Maybe even better. But SVP have
proved reliable for me, so I feel able to recommend them.

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 09:34:00 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

What I do find is that the
slower you cook 'em the better the finished result.

But beware of assuming a VERY slow speed is desirable. Back a few
years, when 1X burning was an option, 2X was found to give fewer
errors. Now I think the optimum speed is rather higher.

Systems are, in fact, quite good at not offering speeds that are too
slow. Media is recognised, and you're quite likely to be offered
nothing slower than 4X (or even higher). Where they DO get
over-optimistic is in the top speed offered. The packaging makes
great play of "32X capable!" or even higher. The punter would, I
suppose complain if his software didn't offer these speeds. But you
mustn't use them for audio CDs. Not this year, anyway :-)

In article , Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom.? writes
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 09:34:00 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

What I do find is that the
slower you cook 'em the better the finished result.

But beware of assuming a VERY slow speed is desirable. Back a few
years, when 1X burning was an option, 2X was found to give fewer
errors. Now I think the optimum speed is rather higher.

Systems are, in fact, quite good at not offering speeds that are too
slow. Media is recognised, and you're quite likely to be offered
nothing slower than 4X (or even higher). Where they DO get
over-optimistic is in the top speed offered. The packaging makes
great play of "32X capable!" or even higher. The punter would, I
suppose complain if his software didn't offer these speeds. But you
mustn't use them for audio CDs. Not this year, anyway :-)

Wot speed dost thou recommended cooking 'em at then???


Also how long does the average DvD take to burn..just curious...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 09:34:00 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

What I do find is that the slower you cook 'em the better the finished
result.

But beware of assuming a VERY slow speed is desirable. Back a few
years, when 1X burning was an option, 2X was found to give fewer errors.
Now I think the optimum speed is rather higher.

Systems are, in fact, quite good at not offering speeds that are too
slow. Media is recognised, and you're quite likely to be offered
nothing slower than 4X (or even higher). Where they DO get
over-optimistic is in the top speed offered.

FWIW I have had problems with this. The CD and DVD burners I use in my
computer refuse to write at speeds below 4X. This means that the 'audio'
discs I'd prefer will be faulty since the drives can't actually write to
these discs at this speed. However 'data' discs of the same brand are
written correctly by my CD writer, but are less easily readable in one of
the audio players I have. The DVD writer won't reliably write to either
type of blank.

The problem seems to be that the 'push' toweards 1000X speed writing for
the sake of impressive computer specs is leading to the use of dyes, etc,
that lower the compliance with the orginal specs for audio players. i.e.
'red book' audio players may find it harder to read these discs. All
depending on brand/type of discs, and the writer.

With a previous computer I used to use a Plextor writer. This gave much
more reliable results with all my audio players, but was a SCSI interface
(which my present computer lacks) and was willing to burn at 2X (or 1X) if
told to do so. The newer writers seem to ignore any instruction to write at
low speeds. Seems to be beneath their dignity to do so at such paltry
speeds, regardless of the owner's wishes. :-)

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

In message , tony sayer
writes
In article , Derrick Fawsitt
writes
In message , Laurence Payne
writes
On Wed, 31 May 2006 09:26:01 +0100, Derrick Fawsitt
wrote:

Finally, up to now I have always used EAC, (Exact Audio Copy), but
although I found it did not let me down, I found the interface puzzling
every time I came back to it to make a copy.
You ask "why didn't I make a simple disk copy", that is exactly what I
set out to do so can you tell me the best way to do exactly that, mind
you, I have lost confidence in PC copies, hence my desire now, (having
lost my chance to get some good copies), to resort to a stand alone CD
burner or copier.
Sorry about all the rigmarole above but I felt it necessary to spell out
all the processes I went through and still ended up with no certain
copies of a lovely library of music.


The Yamaha CDR-HD1500 will work. But so will a properly working £20
burner on your computer. And the HD1500 is a very expensive solution,
with considerable disadvantages over a computer.
But won't it also record from DAB radio, in my case I would find it so
useful for recording disks and concerts from the Proms etc.

Yes indeed.. Though its such a shame that the BBC can't use some higher
bitrates on their flagship classical station, even on satellite where
bandwidth isn't a problem at all.

You might be interested in a digital satellite system Derrick, at least
some European broadcasters think its worthwhile. Bayern Klassik 4 is
excellent as is France Musique both with first class production
standards, as well as some others from Europe inc some useful Jazz
stations)


Even if your French and German isn't as good as it might be the music
conforms to an international language)


FWIW can't say I've ever had any problems burning audio CD's just using
Nero and a bog standard PC CD writer!. I have a Terratec balanced in's
and out's card in the PC which hooks up to the Audiolab system and
thats works fine. Some stuff is kept on the home musicke server system
and what's used more often is burnt to CD. What I do find is that the
slower you cook 'em the better the finished result. Not that I need to
do them fast, just let the machine get on with that whilst doing
something else. Best I've found to record to Hard drive first then edit
with Cool Edit or Audacity to take out the bits you don't really need to
hear, especially Prom broadcast's!.......

Well, thank you all so much for your advice and I hope you don't think I
have ignored it. I have now purchased the Yamaha 1500 principally
because I can leave it on for an entire live concert and then choose and
pick what I want. Obviously I can also copy recording from broadcasts so
that I felt swung the balance.

Also, I have been told by some knowledge friends used to cloning CD's
etc., that I will end up with quality copies in the end, copies that,
(they say), will be of a higher quality than theirs so I may be asked to
record an odd concert or two for them, not to mention the disks, Oh
Dear! I wonder could I charge for them and recoup my outlay on the
Yamaha......
--
Derrick Fawsitt

Derrick Fawsitt wrote:


Well, thank you all so much for your advice and I hope you don't think I
have ignored it. I have now purchased the Yamaha 1500 principally
because I can leave it on for an entire live concert and then choose and
pick what I want. Obviously I can also copy recording from broadcasts so
that I felt swung the balance.


That was really what swung it for me - tools for the job and all that.
Editing is not exactly intuitive, but it is quite powerful once (and if)
you get the hang of it. I use it mainly to play back from the HD, and
transfer to CD for the car or whatever.

Remember to get some audio CDs, and perhaps a couple of rewritables if
you fancy transferring the result to the computer at any stage. I don't
buy them very often - last time I got a good deal at SVP but these look
OK - http://www.cd-rmedia.co.uk

Also, I have been told by some knowledge friends used to cloning CD's
etc., that I will end up with quality copies in the end, copies that,
(they say), will be of a higher quality than theirs so I may be asked to
record an odd concert or two for them, not to mention the disks, Oh
Dear! I wonder could I charge for them and recoup my outlay on the
Yamaha......

It does have a 'high quality' burn setting - can't say I've noticed any
difference but be sure to charge a premium if you use it :-)

Rob

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 21:21:58 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

Systems are, in fact, quite good at not offering speeds that are too
slow. Media is recognised, and you're quite likely to be offered
nothing slower than 4X (or even higher). Where they DO get
over-optimistic is in the top speed offered. The packaging makes
great play of "32X capable!" or even higher. The punter would, I
suppose complain if his software didn't offer these speeds. But you
mustn't use them for audio CDs. Not this year, anyway :-)

Wot speed dost thou recommended cooking 'em at then???

I routinely use 10X or 15X with today's general-purpose media. When
I tried a batch on 32X media at 32X they ALL failed. But that was a
year ago. This sort of thing needs constant re-examination. A slight
change in media spec. or a firmware update for your burner can make a
big difference.



Also how long does the average DvD take to burn..just curious...

I think 8X - rated media is now mainstream. Again, my experience is
that top-speed burning produces a disk that won't play on other
equipment. I choose the second-lowest speed offered as a rule.

But 8 times WHAT? Good question. A 4.7GB DVD can contain varying
lengths of video depending on the compression system. At 4X my
experience is about 15 minutes for a full disk. But it's complicated
by the way many systems "change gear" during the burn process, writing
the first zone at a slower speed. This, incidentally, is why DVD
copies often fail consistently a certain length into the movie.

On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 14:25:01 +0100, Derrick Fawsitt
wrote:

Well, thank you all so much for your advice and I hope you don't think I
have ignored it. I have now purchased the Yamaha 1500 principally
because I can leave it on for an entire live concert and then choose and
pick what I want. Obviously I can also copy recording from broadcasts so
that I felt swung the balance.

I think we knew you were going to, whatever anyone said :-) Enjoy!

Others should be aware that a computer's hard drive will equally well
record a full concert, and offers a considerably easier editing
process. The maximum file-size under FAT32 and the maximum length of
some types of WAV file are limitations that can easily be overcome.