"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , RJH
wrote:

"Chris Isbell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:08:17 -0000, "Gary B"
wrote:

So - I assume its because it produces copies that sound much better
than what I produce using my £40 cd burner at present? - or am I
missing something? Advice appreciated

It's digital! Unless there is a fault or incompatibility all copies
will be identical to the original regardless of the price of the
duplicating equipment.


-- Chris Isbell Southampton UK

They're not, funnily enough. Well, they may well be identical but they
sound different. I have a NAD 660 and the copies often vary in length
(only a couple of seconds), and every so often there's a glitch between
continuous tracks (such as live albums, DSOM etc) when using the direct
dub.

I have a Pioneer Audio CDR/W recorder. I use it mostly for recording
concerts from BBC R3 and for transferring my old tapes, etc, onto CDR.

However when I first had it I did some experiments, making some digital
copies via S/PDIF from another transport (Meridian 263). When I listen I
can't tell the difference[1]. When I load the results onto my computer and
do a sample-for-sample comparison, they come out identical.

That's interesting - because my copies are not identical, although I'm not
sure how to do a bit for bit comparison. The amount of space used on the
disk, and track sizes differ very slightly.

I don't seem to have encountered the 'glitch' problem you describe.
However
this may be a mis-feature of some recorders, I suppose. Perhaps akin to
'track at once' as opposed to 'disc at once' recording.

It's a tiny, fraction of a second 'blip', just as the tracks cross over.
Could well be a TAO 'undocumented feature'.

Rob

[1] Some brands of CDR do not play reliably on my old Meridian transport,
and these can then sound different. However in these cases the copy
sounded
just like the orginal if played on the recorder as a transport, and using
the meridan DAC for the output.

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 H" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:27:18 -0000, RJH
wrote:

It's digital! Unless there is a fault or incompatibility all copies
will be identical to the original regardless of the price of the
duplicating equipment.

They're not, funnily enough. Well, they may well be identical but they
sound different.

Then surely they are not identical?

Well, some would argue that something with identical physical properties
within the bounds of measurement as something else *is* identical(IYSWIM!).
I'm saying this may well be a bit perfect copy, but it sounds different by
virtue of the glitch.

I have a NAD 660 and the copies often vary in length (only a
couple of seconds), and every so often there's a glitch between
continuous
tracks (such as live albums, DSOM etc) when using the direct dub.
According
to the many reviews I read before buying, the NAD is pretty good. This
is
the reason given to me by the NAD people:
----------
Sorry there is no cure for the problem, and it is normal on the C660 as
with
many other makes and models I am told.

The Bit copy is making a perfect duplicate - it is the track information
that is causing the "Glitch" to appear in the copy.
--------------

Sounds very much like a design fault to me. No (non broken) £40 PC drive
would do this.
A perfect copy should include a perfect copy of the track information as
well as the music.

I agree. But I do remember having similar problems with cd copying - took 4
goes to get dsom right ...

Rob
--
Jim H jh
@333
.org

"Jim H" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:27:18 -0000, RJH
wrote:

It's digital! Unless there is a fault or incompatibility all copies
will be identical to the original regardless of the price of the
duplicating equipment.

They're not, funnily enough. Well, they may well be identical but they
sound different.

Then surely they are not identical?

Well, some would argue that something with identical physical properties
within the bounds of measurement as something else *is* identical(IYSWIM!).
I'm saying this may well be a bit perfect copy, but it sounds different by
virtue of the glitch.

I have a NAD 660 and the copies often vary in length (only a
couple of seconds), and every so often there's a glitch between
continuous
tracks (such as live albums, DSOM etc) when using the direct dub.
According
to the many reviews I read before buying, the NAD is pretty good. This
is
the reason given to me by the NAD people:
----------
Sorry there is no cure for the problem, and it is normal on the C660 as
with
many other makes and models I am told.

The Bit copy is making a perfect duplicate - it is the track information
that is causing the "Glitch" to appear in the copy.
--------------

Sounds very much like a design fault to me. No (non broken) £40 PC drive
would do this.
A perfect copy should include a perfect copy of the track information as
well as the music.

I agree. But I do remember having similar problems with cd copying - took 4
goes to get dsom right ...

Rob
--
Jim H jh
@333
.org

In article , RJH
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

However when I first had it I did some experiments, making some
digital copies via S/PDIF from another transport (Meridian 263). When
I listen I can't tell the difference[1]. When I load the results onto
my computer and do a sample-for-sample comparison, they come out
identical.

That's interesting - because my copies are not identical, although I'm
not sure how to do a bit for bit comparison. The amount of space used on
the disk, and track sizes differ very slightly.

For my experiments I just ripped the tracks from the original and copy to
my HD, then wrote a program that just ran through both files doing a byte
by byte comparison. They came out the same. IIRC I also used a 'diff' tool
that does much the same that came with my C/C++ compiler.

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 article , RJH
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

However when I first had it I did some experiments, making some
digital copies via S/PDIF from another transport (Meridian 263). When
I listen I can't tell the difference[1]. When I load the results onto
my computer and do a sample-for-sample comparison, they come out
identical.

That's interesting - because my copies are not identical, although I'm
not sure how to do a bit for bit comparison. The amount of space used on
the disk, and track sizes differ very slightly.

For my experiments I just ripped the tracks from the original and copy to
my HD, then wrote a program that just ran through both files doing a byte
by byte comparison. They came out the same. IIRC I also used a 'diff' tool
that does much the same that came with my C/C++ compiler.

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

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:41:42 +0000 (GMT)
Jim Lesurf wrote:

For my experiments I just ripped the tracks from the original and copy to
my HD, then wrote a program that just ran through both files doing a byte
by byte comparison. They came out the same. IIRC I also used a 'diff' tool
that does much the same that came with my C/C++ compiler.

Which, of course, proves the tracks are the same, but not the disc - what about the spacing between the tracks? (is it seamless?)

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:41:42 +0000 (GMT)
Jim Lesurf wrote:

For my experiments I just ripped the tracks from the original and copy to
my HD, then wrote a program that just ran through both files doing a byte
by byte comparison. They came out the same. IIRC I also used a 'diff' tool
that does much the same that came with my C/C++ compiler.

Which, of course, proves the tracks are the same, but not the disc - what about the spacing between the tracks? (is it seamless?)

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

In article , Ian Molton
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:41:42 +0000 (GMT) Jim Lesurf
wrote:

For my experiments I just ripped the tracks from the original and copy
to my HD, then wrote a program that just ran through both files doing
a byte by byte comparison. They came out the same. IIRC I also used a
'diff' tool that does much the same that came with my C/C++ compiler.

Which, of course, proves the tracks are the same, but not the disc -
what about the spacing between the tracks? (is it seamless?)

Can't answer that definatively. Can only say that in instances where the
recordings were 'continuous music' over a track change, no changes were
noticed by the above test, nor did I notice any audible glitches or timing
changes. However I only did these tests with a few CDs on one recorder, so
do not know how typical they may be. I concluded I had no effect worth
worrying about, and stopped there.

With track at once, of course, the situation is quite different.

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 article , Ian Molton
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:41:42 +0000 (GMT) Jim Lesurf
wrote:

For my experiments I just ripped the tracks from the original and copy
to my HD, then wrote a program that just ran through both files doing
a byte by byte comparison. They came out the same. IIRC I also used a
'diff' tool that does much the same that came with my C/C++ compiler.

Which, of course, proves the tracks are the same, but not the disc -
what about the spacing between the tracks? (is it seamless?)

Can't answer that definatively. Can only say that in instances where the
recordings were 'continuous music' over a track change, no changes were
noticed by the above test, nor did I notice any audible glitches or timing
changes. However I only did these tests with a few CDs on one recorder, so
do not know how typical they may be. I concluded I had no effect worth
worrying about, and stopped there.

With track at once, of course, the situation is quite different.

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

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:09:47 +0000 (GMT)
Jim Lesurf wrote:

With track at once, of course, the situation is quite different.

Oh, sorry, I assumed you wer talking TAO.

If DAO came out different I;d have said your CDRW was broken :-)

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.