burning cds

[messyfuture]

could anybody who has tracks released before tell me is it best to burn cds at X1 speed when u send them off to be mastered
basically do u get a better copy of the track at this speed?
oh and could u recomend a make of high quality cdr. I always buy 100 cd spindles and there probably not the best quality
cheers ;)

[DJZeMig_L]

HHB, TDK, BASF.. I think Carbon Cds are good aswell ... x1.. is more off a play it safe... !

Sorry if I can't b of much more help but I generally send DAT! :oops:

Z

[messyfuture]

cheers Z :lol:

[Basil Rush]

Something to do with the increased error rate on high speed burns could mean that the error correcting code in a player has to work harder to play back the music and makes some approximations to the content in the process.

I've never actually heard the difference mind you, just noticed that disks sometimes don't play if you burn them real quick in some players.

I thought I'd be cunning and send the mastering house a 24bit WAV file once which I thought would be a piece of piss in this age of computers but apparently was more hassle ... if you can talk to the mastering studio first and see if they'll take something in a good data format ... i imagine it'll be the method of the future.

[DJZeMig_L]

Basil I have always heard that 48 Khz is better than 44.1 Khz for vinyl pressing!!
do U know how much of this is true? Is it just because u have a more detailed source, consequentialy u'll have a better final mastered file**? If so then Maybe we should move on 2 92 khz 32 bit float...

** The only particular reason I can think of!

i'll be glad 2 hear any1 that might have any valuable input!

Z

[Basil Rush]

Don't know, I started doing everything at 48KHz recently.

It might make a small difference, but if you can't hear the difference between the 44.1 and 48kHz versions of your master on some good monitors, i doubt anyone is going to be able to tell in the club.

There's definitely a significant improvement from 44.1kHz to 96kHz. Although whether that's because the processing in plugins and so on produces less audible artifacts and maybe you wouldn't notice a 44.1kHz if it had been mixed at 96k I dunno, never tried it.

But I've run the virus plugin on protools at 96kHz and it sounds nicer than it running at 44.1k ... wonder what freqency the hardware version runs at internally...

[DJZeMig_L]

I guess that on the hardware it won't really matter has 4 sure the range of freq. will surelly b strangled back to the usual 20-20k...

I think that the differences won't b heard as it is physically impossible.. but the fact that the range when using 96khz is widther might also affect in the same way as using the panning of the channels distribuites de sound better over the sound scape thus not so much freq./ space struggle ...

I have heard this theory recently that makes lots of sense ... If we are used 2 44.1 KHZ, then we don't notice much buy going up, but if u start at 96khz and the u go down u'll hear some differences...

I have been temped 2 go all the way to 92khz, 32 bit float from now on!


Z

[Basil Rush]

**** knows, I've read the theory ... but I suspect the theory makes over simplifications so I decided to go with my ears and especially when using the virus plugin i can hear the 96k sounding better than 44.1khz. We recorded a rock ballad once at 96k and it sounds amazing still, but i'd have needed to do a parallel recording at 44.1 to be able to say if that was because we did it at 96 or not ...

Apparently there's a Virus plugin coming out for the PowerCore cards too! Oxford EQ and Virus plugin has gotta make the powercore more and more essential...

[DJZeMig_L]

Yeah ... I think antinoise posted the news here... I should cost about 500 Euros or something...

http://www.blackoutaudio.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=10636
http://www.access-music.de/events/01-2004/nammshow2004.php4?product=virusc

"...gotta make the powercore more and more essential..."

I will go even further and had having more than one powercore will b more and more essencial lol...

Z