This is topic DVD Audio Disks in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000079
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-25-2001, 12:59 AM:
I recently got a new DVD player and it was capable of DVD audio playback as well. I didn't buy it for that but more for the progressive scam output. At any rate I finally got around to buying several DVD audio's the other day and all I can say is WOW! What a difference, it does't sound like your listening to an electronic music source. Funny, I always will remember the arguemant I got into with J.A. about the fact that 44.1khz sampling rate was still too low. These things are simply amazing.......
Have any of you bought any of the disks out yet? If so what are some of your reccomendations to buy?
Mark @ GTS
Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 08-25-2001, 05:15 AM:
Blue Man Group...'nuff said.
Posted by Christopher M. Belch (Member # 846) on 08-25-2001, 01:34 PM:
I remember reading an article about audio dvds in popular mechanics or something like that. They sounded really impressive, but they were a little, er, lot pricey. Obviously you feel like it was worth it. Would you mind sharing how much you paid, what you bought, what you got, ect, just so we know a little more. Thanks!!!
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 08-25-2001, 05:53 PM:
Looks like amazon.com has an average price of $22.47 for rock dvd's ...DVD-Audio at amazon.com
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-25-2001, 09:14 PM:
When regular CD's came out they were more expensive that Audio DVD's. The average price for a CD in 1981 was 30 bucks! I bought one of the first CD players that you could get at that time. A Toshiba DA-1000 and it cost a grand to buy. I think it only had a 14 bit D to A., perhaps only a 12 bit. Looking back at that it sure has come along way to where it is now. I doubt that Audio DVD's will replace CD's but then, who knows. Most new mid priced DVD players will play them and a 24 bit 96 khz D to A convertor can be had to less than 700 bucks. That D to A will decode all formats of audio disks.
Mark
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 08-26-2001, 12:57 AM:
>>The average price for a CD in 1981 was 30 bucks!<<Quite amazing, as the CD format wasn't formally introduced to the market until 1983! 
Aaron
Posted by JC Cowles (Member # 914) on 08-26-2001, 01:01 AM:
I have been wanting to start playing DVD-A discs for a while, but when I originally boughy my DVD player no such abilities were to be found in the market. Now I purchased a Receiver with 6-channel inputs so I think it is time to finally purchase my fifth DVD player with DVD-A.The closest I've come so far is the DVD music video discs I've purchased. I can't believe the difference the higher bit rate of Dolby Digital and DTS makes in DVD discs. The Eagles: Hell Freezes Over and Roy Orbison: Black & White discs are phenominal (DTS of course ;-).
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-26-2001, 05:35 PM:
Aaron, Sorry, next time I'll just say back in the 80's.....I'm not too good at remembering exact dates, especially that long ago but I do think it was 1981. Perhaps I got mine before the general release on a large scale......My Mind has been blown out by these new DVD Audio Disks so its all IRRELEVANT(thrown in for Joe)anyway. Seems like all the standard CD related problems have just been thrown out the door, no more brick wall filters and all the harmonics are finally all in place too. This does really make a difference. And once and for all and we can finally say so long vinyl!
Here are some of the specs that DVD Audio is capable of. I lifted these off the DVD audio web site. Note that standard CD specs are listed under the DVD specs.....
Specification
DVD-Audio
CD
Audio Format
PCM
PCM
Disk Capacity
4.7Gb - Single layer
8.5Gb - Dual Layer
17Gb – Double Sided Dual Layer
CD- 650Mb
Channels
Up to 6
CD- 2 (stereo)
Frequency Response
0 - 96kHz (max)
CD- 5 - 20kHz
Dynamic Range
144db
CD- 96db
Sampling Rate - 2 channel
44.1, 88.2, 176.4KHz or
48, 96, 192KHz
CD- 44.1kHz
Sampling Rate - multichannel
44.1, 88.2KHz or
48, 96KHz
CD- n/a
Sample Size (Quantization)
12, 16, 20, or 24 bits
CD- 16 bits
Maximum Data Rate
9.6 Mbps.
CD- 1.4Mbps
I have as of yet to find any 192 khz sampling rate disks. Anyone know of these?
Also, my JVC XV-D723 lists for 899.00 but I got it on sale at Ultimate Electronics for 399.00! So check around before spending alot of dough, you'll definately find a good deal someplace.
Mark @ GTS
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-26-2001, 07:00 PM:
So, do you think DVD-A sounds better than Vinyl in every way so far?I imagine it helps to have a really good receiver. Many receivers digitize the incoming analog signal (at 16bit, 44.1khz) thus eliminating any benefits derived from DVD-A. I think that just about any Realistic brand equipment sold at Radio Shack would be plenty fine 
Also, CD's can hold much more than 650MB's. Try closer to 900MB (of LPCM) for the 90 minute discs now available.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-26-2001, 08:19 PM:
I just sold my vinyl playback stuff recently. Not because of DVD Audio though, just cause I was tired of all its inconveniences. I had a really top notch setup too. VPI table, Benz cardridge and a highly modofied Audio Research PH-3 vacuum tube Phono Stage. It sounded way better than CD's ever possibly could. The cartridge and phono stage alone cost more than most high end D to A converters.Joe, the peoblem all stems back to how much data can youread reliably and how fast can it be accurately processed. With digital thats primarily what determines the max sampling rate and sound quality. CD's are now obsolete IMHO, DVD recorders are right around the corner even for home computers with audio recording software most likely lingering around right behind it.
If I Had to do a side by side comparison I would say that DVD Audio can easily replace it and surpass it in many ways. Particularly in the noise and dynamic range areas.
I do have a receiver now and personally if you ask me receivers suck big time...still. Mine does have seperate analog inputs thank god! I would really love to have all my Krell stuff back now, thats for sure.
MArk @ GTS
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-26-2001, 10:32 PM:
CDs cannot be obsolete until some other format eclipses them in market share. They may be obsolete for you. My problem would be that my favorite types of music are not yet on DVD-A. Everything will have to be remastered and rereleased. I agree that it is a much better format, though.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-28-2001, 09:35 AM:
Joe,
Sorry, taking a market share does not determine if something is obsolete or not...this is irrelevant to the situation of any technology. Take for instance the Space Shuttle.....it has all been obsolete now for several decades and we are in need of a new, more efficient one, take for instance the computer you are sitting at right now reading this message. It was obsolete before it hit the streets to be bought by yourself.
Its actually the pace of technology that determines what is obsolete or not. Its the bean counters that decide to continue or not to continue marketing a now obsolete product, or using obsolete technology. Sometimes industry, or a person is happy to continue using some form of obsolete technology cause it suits them just fine and gets the job done. However with the advance in Digital audio, standard old CD's are definately obsolete technology.
Mark @ GTS
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-28-2001, 03:21 PM:
Something that is still widly in use with new products made for it cannot be obsolete. Perhaps you mean "outdated"? My computer is not obsolete. There is still hardware made for it and software as well. It is faster than most new PCs on the market even today. I hardly consider that obsolete. It'll be obsolete when I can no longer upgrade or run the newest apps on it.Don't worry Mark. We all bow down to you for having HDTV and DVD-A. 
Posted by Nic Margherio (Member # 273) on 08-28-2001, 06:18 PM:
While I've not yet heard a DVD-Audio release, I can attest to the absolutely stunning and life-like sound of SACD. I had the opportuninty to listen to recording at a local high-end electronics store in their listening room (a room I have listened to several CD recordings in) and I was blown away by the entire experience. Beats the hell out of regular old CD's. From everything that I have read, DVD-Audio is just as good.Of course neither format will go anywhere until there are more releases...
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-28-2001, 07:05 PM:
From what I;ve read DVD-A should actually be much better.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-28-2001, 07:31 PM:
I went back to Media Play last night to buy another disk.....Fleetwood Mac: Rumours. I was amazed at how many they ahd sold since I ahd bought my first ones. The racks were practically bare there. I got the last Fleetwood Mac disk they had. It is definately a must buy disk. Probably a good refrence as to what other DVD audio disks should sound like. I read somewhere about this disk on a web site for DVD Audio where buyers can make mini reviews of disks....Not all are real good either but when they are good they are great. I'll visit a High End store near me this weekend and see what they have available. They said that they have quite a number of them.
Joe, ya can argue all ya want to but remember that NASA also put new computers and engines into the shuttle and they still consider it obsolete. And Yes, Your Mac and my PC are obsolete as well, cause of the P-4 and AMD 1.5 ghz and whatever Mac has brewed up since yours was made. Remember that I men this form a technological standpoint though.....not from a purchasable, or marketable standpoint, sorry I should have said that I meant it that way first.
Mark
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-28-2001, 07:52 PM:
Macs are still using G4's (of which one is in my computer). Sure, the fastest one is 800+mhz (which is a little faster than a 2Ghz P4 or AMD), but it's still a G4.As far as the Space Shuttle is concerned, how can something be obsolete when there is nothing newer or better to replace it? Some of the technology used inside of the shuttle may be obsolete, but the actual shuttle itself? I don't see anything else flying up in space doing what it is doing... not yet.
Going by your argument , everything on the planet is obsolete once something (anything) newer has arrived.
-My older sister was rendered obsolete once I was born.
-T120 videotapes became obsolete when the newer T160 tapes came out (even though you may not always need nor desire to pay for 160 minute tapes).
-Airplanes have made trains, ships and cars obsolete as a form of travel.
-New Coke made regular Coke obsolete.
And of course:
-DLP has already rendered film obsolete (before DLP was ever shown publicly).
This is fun 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-29-2001, 10:26 AM:
Joe said.......
As far as the Space Shuttle is concerned, how can something be obsolete when there is nothing newer or better to replace it? Some of the technology used inside of the shuttle may be obsolete, but the actual shuttle itself? I don't see anything else flying up in space doing what it is doing... not yet.Actually Joe there is the X-33 program. However, It was canceled due to poor management of the design. It was in the early testing phase when it was canceled and was canceled only due to fuel tank problems. However each shuttle is designed for 100 flights so look for NASA to be flying them for about the next 20 years. The shuttles will probably fly along with the new technology when it is developed and ready. And yes, the present Shuttles airframe is obsolete, and has been rendered so by the normal technological growth of the aircraft industry that designed it. If they built new ones much of it would now be carbon fibre... like the 777's rudder and floor joists are. But thats a minor example.
He also said....
"Going by your argument , everything on the planet is obsolete once something (anything) newer has arrived. "
Thats partially correct Joe. Just one thing arriving can't make everything obsolete, its usually one on one. It also doesn't mean that the older technology will be discontinued right away.
And he said.....
"Airplanes have made trains, ships and cars obsolete as a form of travel."
Your right again!
Plane travel has all but killed rail travel. It did kill ship travel first. One of those is on display as a mueseum piece in Long Beach. The shamble of rail travel system that is left will also soon be on display in a museum along with alot of other rail travel stuff that already is.
Also....
-New Coke made regular Coke obsolete.
I think this was a mistake by the dudes at Coke. It was a total failure, but they did try to obsolete regular Coke and discontinue producing it. Probably cause of some expensive ingredient that they were able to leave out of "New Coke"
And..."My older sister was rendered obsolete once I was born."
Well, You were actually "In Addition" to your older sister sort of like the Discovery and Endeavor were "In Addition to the Columbia after it was rolled out.....I doubt that your sister was "rolled out though". T-160's were also in addition to T-120's.....allows recording time to fit your needs and has nothing to do with obsolence.
This is fun!
I don't know what Mac has up their sleves but from what you are saying it sounds to me like they are and have always been building obsolete computers. Just cause the G-4 chips are still produced doesn't make them not obsolete. Western Electric for instance still makes the 300B vacuum tube because it can be marketed and sold, but mainly to Audio Tubeheads. And no, Vacuum tubes are not completely obsolete but they will be on the near horizon. Even final PA's in ultra high power transmitters are all solid state now, and have been for some time. There are way too many dangerous and unreyclable materials used in manufacturing some types of vacuum tubes....beryllium oxide for example and CRT's are very dangerous in particuluar. 
Mark @ GTS
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-06-2001, 11:56 PM:
Today I installed a JVC XV-FA95GD 7-disc DVD/DVD-A/MP3/CD/CD-R/CD-RW/VCD
player in our Imax theater.All I can say is ... "Damn."
The entire construction site nearly came to a standstill to sit in the theater and listen to the Eagles and Steely Dan.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-07-2001, 01:11 AM:
The Eagles and Steely? Aren't those recordings billions of years old? How can an old recording be upgraded well beyond CD quality when they can't even get the normal CD versions to sounds very good? Or is it just artificial computer interpolation trying to fill in the gaps? If that's the case I wouldn't be very impressed.Anyway, Mark... Have you heard Super CD and HDCD? I think those are the other two formats out there besides DVD-A that are supposed to be better. What are your opinions on those? None of these technologies use compression, correct? I sure hope not. DVD-A is already obsolete.
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 11-07-2001, 11:10 AM:
If I remenber, the orginal five computers on the space shuttle were designed to arbitrate decisions between them within a guaranteed time period and "handshaking" to verify. While old and slow by today's standards (they used core memory!), this is hardly off the shelf hardware and not easily replaced. Practically every home/ business PC we use "trusts" other components (IO peripherals ) to provide data without handshaking and, hence, no verification. Also, the computers were made to work with the already installed (for Apollo) IBM computers at mission control.The DVD audios are pretty cool, but I just can't go out and buy yet another copy of an album I already have! (Reminds me of that line in Men in Black; "Looks like I have to buy the White Album, again...!")
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-07-2001, 11:51 AM:
Adam,
Thats the exact comment I made to myself when I hit play the first time I heard one. Be weary of buying DVD's that will not play back in 2 chan mode!!!! Joe, You're forgetting that high quality analog can actually surpass many digital systems especially if there was type A or SR encoding used. Many of the analog recordings that were made back into the 50's are astounding to say the least. Still audibly surpassing the quality of most of the early digital recording systems. DVD audio lets you hear exactly how good the original recording is..or isn't. New recordings made in the format are unbelievable to say the least.
The Shuttles now have new upgraded computers. They were upgraded during expensive rebuilds of the shutles one by one. They now also have flat panel displays eliminating the old CRT readouts. The main reason for replacement of the computers was that spare parts had run out. Sure, the old ones ran fine but the new ones will keep the shuttles going for along time to come. They also generate less heat that has to be gotten rid of. Many other aspects have also been upgraded from the main engines which are now considerably safer to operate while producing about 35% more power than they could at first, and to the flight control systems and solid rocket boosters.
Mark @ GTS
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-07-2001, 05:52 PM:
Mark G-Spot:You didn't answer my question! First of all I know that analog recordings kick all ass when done properly. But I asked how can they make the new versions sound so good when they couldn't even make the CD versions sound as good as normal CDs usually do.
Also, you completely evaded my queries about HDCD and Super CD. This means that I must automatically assume that you are not confident of how good the obsolete DVD-A format sounds in comparison to these other two obsolete formats. 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-07-2001, 06:36 PM:
Oh What da ya know.... Sorry Joe,
It usually comes down to really poor mastering of the CD, and sometimes really poor equipment that is used to do the mastering. Many times a budget constraint is in force too as it is with many film to DVD transfers.
I once used Bob Katz to master a CD we put together of a friends large theatre pipe organ. Bob has won several Grammys for mastering of CD's and he is one of the top dogs in the field. His knowledge of just things like jitter alone contribute to the astounding quality of everything he masters. His custom designed jitter reduction units are unbelievable to say the least. I had the priveledge of hearing the direct output of his Sonic Solutions editing system and it sounded horrible. I then knew why many cd's sounded so bad. Fortunately Bob sends the output through a jitter reduction unit of his own design which turns the output signal into a signal that is really remarkable and difficult to distinguish from the original recording. This digital signal is then recorded and sent to the CD manufacturer. This digital record is usually transfered to a 3/4" U-Matic tape on a special type of digital record/play system called a PCM-1630 that has ultra high stability master oscillators. In fact these machines are never powered down and I think he said that the oscillators are refrenced to an atomic clock. The glass masters are then made from that system. There is usually an extra 500.00 charge by the cd pressing plant to originate from this type of 3/4" tape as there are very few of these 3/4" systems around. Anyway with DVD audio, the mastering is similar but many of the inherent defects are eliminated by the overall capabilities of the DVD audio system. I haven't discussed the DVD audio system at all with Bob so I don't know if the same PCM-1630 3/4" system is being used for that, but I doubt that it is.
Bob is not a fan of HDCD at all and claims that there are alot of artifacts that can be heard in this type of system so he does not do any mastering in the format. As far as super cd goes I have yet to hear one and am not a big fan of Sony. No Baloney!
Hopefully this helps.....but if not then you can write Bob and ask him yourself........
Mark @ GTS
Visit Bob's web site at www.digido.com to find some very interesting articles on jitter reduction and redithering algorithims that he wrote.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-07-2001, 07:35 PM:
Interesting. I only have one more question:Do you know what the specs are for
DVD-A
HDCD
Super CD?
I am under the impression (illusion?) that DVD-A wins in the amount of data given for the audio signal and theoretically can sound the best of the three formats.
Now we just need DVD-A recorders for consumers. I don't know what they'd record other than live sound but it would be fun for people like me.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-07-2001, 07:51 PM:
Joe,
Click on this like to go to the DVD-A spec page....... http://www.digitalaudioguide.com/faq/dvd-audio/faq_2.htm#What%20are%20t he%20DVD-Audio%20Specifications?
I couldn't find other easily deciphered info on HDCD except that it is limited to two channels of info........
Super CD only has a 120 db dynamic range capability. DVD-A offers another 20 db over that.
Mark @ GTS
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-08-2001, 02:18 AM:
Hmmmm.... I wonder why anyone would want to use 12-bit sampling? Also, why does everyone think that Audio CDs are only capable of holding 650 MBs? That's absurd, actually. A 74 minute CD holds approximately 740 MB of audio. Even if the 74 minute CD-R you are burning says 650 MB Max you are still putting 740 megs of audio on the disc (assuming that you fill it up). In fact, I burned a CD last night with 98 minutes and 38 seconds of audio. I had all of the audio files on the computer before burning (ripped from other CDs) and the size of all the audio files on that disc combined is 990.9 MB. That's not even counting the lead-in and lead out tracks which take up a few megs of space each, nor the 2 second spacing between each track which would take 2.8 megabits each -- at 33 tracks that's 11.55 more megabytes. So I have here an audio CD that has nearly 1 Gig of info on it if not more. And yes, it plays properly in all CD players that I have tried... even old ones. Kick ass!
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-08-2001, 08:06 PM:
Some DAT machines had a lower quality record mode, 38khz I think, and that may be why the 12 bit option was thrown in. Hard to say but it sure must sound lousy!
MArk @ GTS
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-11-2001, 12:25 PM:
While DVD can be impressive, It still could be quite a bit better. The main gripe I have with it --at least the current working of it, is that there is no digital output for the 24/96 5.1 MLP signal. That sucks. Unless your surround controller or receiver takes that analog 5.1 input and directly routes it to the amplifiers, you will get a generational loss of quality when the receiver or controller tries to process the signal. The becomes greater if the receiver converts the signal back into the digital realm. To add to this problem, I don't think any DVD Audio players have yet been able to include any bass management for the MLP mode inside the DVD player. So if you don't have a very high end set of speakers capable of really deep bass out of the mains, you are going to be kind of screwed.
DVD Audio should have been able to incorporate the IEEE-1394 Firewire digital output standard. While the DVD players and A-V receivers like 1934 I/O, I'm not spending a bunch to upgrade my current home theater setup.
My feeling is that DVD Audio (as well as SACD) are doing really poorly. Those formats are far far overshadowed by MP3 and personal/portable MP3 music players. CD burning is a very big thing. I have lots of dubbed CDs and custom mixed CDs. To me, it is more fun to be able to mix together a few customized discs for a party than it is to just sit and listen to an MLP disc that has no other use than that static purpose.
Until the music industry gets over all their copy protection madness and gets some portability and additional functionality into the DVD-A and SACD formats, they will go nowhere. I can do a lot more with a regular LPCM music CD.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-11-2001, 01:58 PM:
iPod Rulezzzzz!!!!!!!!!!! OK maybe not.What is with CD-R anyway? I may have asked this before, but if I rip a track from a CD and burn it to another CD (without tampering with the file) the audio becomes much LOUDER with each passing generation, often introducing distortion. Audio CDRs are NOT perfect dupes... at least not with standard CD-R equipment. And yes, this happens even if I burn the entire audio CD to an image file first, instead of WAV/AIFF.
If your home audio system needs "bass management" then it is probably not good enough for DVD Audio anyway. The signal should not go straight through to the amplifiers. It could sound very harsh that way. What if you took an SDDS unit, hooked it straight to the amps and did not touch the EQ settings (leaving it perfectly flat)? Or passed the analog sound from the film through the Dolby SR noise reduction and then straight to the amps (no EQ)? It would sound horrible! If you have DVD-A, you probably already have a really good preamp that is capable of running a good EQ and passing it along, all in the analog stage. Digital EQs can suck my ass.... well they can be pretty good, but they're just not as flexible. But I agree that a lot of home receivers convert all incoming audio into 44.1khz 16-Bit (some of them 24-bit) PCM and then fiddle with the audio in that realm. That would indeed destroy the advantages of DVD-A.
Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 11-11-2001, 09:36 PM:
Joe: Yes, that's true about CDR not being an exact replica of a CD, irrespective of the method used to duplicate it. Recently, I've been comparing burned DVD-R discs to test pressings from glass masters and the glass master discs are always better - the picture is visibly sharper. So it would seem that burning is simply not as accurate as stamping from an original.According to reviews I've read, the higher-end Sony minidisc recorders can produce results which are very close to indistinguishable from the original, plus minidisc is a little more flexible than CDR in some respects, too, in terms of changing the order of tracks later on and things like that.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-12-2001, 05:20 AM:
I love MiniDisc. I have been using MD for a very long time. The sound quality is very very good on most units I have tried. The volume is too low in all Sony made portable models, even when cranked up all the way... maybe because Sony wants to save battery life by having reduced volume (this does not effect recording). But I have noticed little to no difference between CD and MiniDisc as far as sound quality is concerned. And in my book MiniDisc recordings beat the hell out of CD-R recordings in audio quality. MiniDisc is MUCH truer to the original source than any burned CD. Don't let the numbers fool ya, let your ears do the talkin'!PS - MiniDisc uses the ATRAC data scheme to store its music and sound.
PSS - So does SDDS.
Posted by John Schulien (Member # 215) on 11-12-2001, 03:53 PM:
Sony (and a few other brand) DAT recorders have a 32 KHz, 12 bit mode. When you use this mode, the tape runs half as fast, and the recording time of the tape doubles, from 2 to 4 hours. Yes, the signal quality is noticably poorer; it isn't CD quality at all. Long-Play mode was really designed for recording radio broadcasts, which already have everything over 15KHz filtered out, and are heavily compressed.
Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 11-14-2001, 05:59 PM:
Joe, how do you transfer your cd's to minidisk? I am getting a little annoyed with the 5 sceonds of silence between each track that is inserted to force track seperation. any other methods that would work better?P.S. I am using a program that came with my soundcard to digitally connect the recorder and my pc.
Josh
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-14-2001, 09:49 PM:
I don't involve my computer when I make MiniDiscs. I take the digital output from a CD player into the digital in of the MD recorder. Usually I use coaxial digital connections, but optical is fine too. I stop and start the MiniDisc recorder myself, eliminating any gaps. They even have units on the market now that have CD players and MD recorders built into the same deck, and allow for 4x copying speed.
Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 11-15-2001, 08:53 AM:
Yes, If you dont mind the $400 price tag.....so you manually record the MD's? Is there a button you can press to designate a track break without stopping record mode? it would make transfering cd's much faster if you could.
Josh
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-15-2001, 05:25 PM:
While the unit is recording (not in record-pause) press the "record" button and the tracks will serparate where you pressed the button without stopping the unit or causing any adverse affects like skips, dropouts, fatigue, drymouth, or impotence.If you are recording from an analog source simply pausing the unit will create a new track upon unpausing. Or a new track will automatically create itself if it hears two seconds of silence (again, analog recording only).
Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 11-15-2001, 06:16 PM:
Thanks Joe