This is topic Making Audio Cd's in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=000227
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-10-2001, 07:36 PM:
I think everyone will agree that it is quite simple to make audio CDs. But when I make them I notice that the audio on the CDR is always way too loud. Even when I rip them off of another CD, there is a difference and you are not getting an exact duplicate. If I record audio through the analog inputs of the computer, I must decrease the recording level way below what I feel is necessary. For although the recorded WAV or AIFF files sound good with no distortion, they get cranked up and distortion is added when burned with Nero or Toast 5. (Toast 5 sucks my hairy ass, by the way). If I record them lower, they still get cranked up but not as badly.What's up with this? Is this something the music industry is doing to make sure we don't get 100% perfect copies of their precious audio?
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-10-2001, 08:44 PM:
Joe,
You need to get "Easy CD Creator". It has a feature to level all cuts when you burn a CD. It does this automatically by sampling the levels and averaging them and then making the final CD based on that level. It works flawlessly. It will also put in spaces between each cut.
Mark @ GTS
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-10-2001, 09:13 PM:
Yes, but you STILL aren't getting a bit for bit copy of the song you are recording.
Posted by Kyle Abel (Member # 819) on 04-10-2001, 10:52 PM:
What Mark's referring to is a process called "Normalizing". Basically normalizing a series of tracks will ensure that all the tracks have the same volume within themselves. Now whether or not that volume is the same as produced albums or whatnot is all dependent on how you go about normalizing. You can normalize using the peak volumes, which will adjust the tracks according to the loudest points, or you can normalize them to the "RMS", or the average volume. You can use a reference point from the series of tracks you are normalizing, or you can use a level that you pull out of the air. You can have great success with this by trial and error, if you have the time and the money for extra CD-R's.------------------
Kyle Abel
General Manager
Plano Movies 10
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-11-2001, 01:26 AM:
Yes, but you STILL aren't getting a bit for bit copy of the song you are recording.I know all about levels and normilization. I don't want to kill my dynamic range (which is what normalization does, by the way.) This reminds me of the SMART Afterburner product designed to destroy dynamic range in auditoriums that have such poor insulation that they shouldn't have even been built in the first place.
But my point is that there is no way (with any program that I know of) to get a perfect bit for bit copy of a song, unless you do a Disc Copy, but then that gives you the whole CD. Very few CDs in the world exist where every track is actually good.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-11-2001, 06:27 AM:
Why would normalizing kill dynamic range?
Imagine a DAT machine (or other digital recording device): the very top end of the meter is labelled "0" and represents the highest possible level that can be recorded (all available bits set to "1") before distortion occurs. This is an absolute limit, unlike what you would have on a standard (analog) tape recorder, where the tape will saturate above a certain level, which gives weird-sounding effects, which depend on the tape type in use and the actual level, and which aren't the same as digital distortion.
As I understand it, when done properly, "normalizing" is intended to do nothing more than ensure that the loudest sound on the recording will hit "0" on the meter, which won't affect dynamic range at all. If your software is doing something different, then you have a software problem. It _is_ possible to make a bit-for-bit copy (a la "dd") of a CD.
Posted by Kyle Abel (Member # 819) on 04-11-2001, 09:53 PM:
Normalizing shouldn't reduce your dynamics, and it changes the gain of the whole track. "Compressing" will crunch your dynamics. In a nutshell it makes your softs louder, and makes your louds softer. But it all depends on the ratio in which you use. A 2:1 ratio will do less compressing than a 5:1. But as far as the bit-to-bit converting as Joe is talking about, I'm really not familiar with that.------------------
Kyle Abel
General Manager
Plano Movies 10
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-11-2001, 10:27 PM:
Joe,
Go to www.digido.com and read the article on jitter. I think you'll agree after reading it that you will never get a bit for bit copy no matter what. Even with the most expensive equipment there is jitter will always exist and it is worst in plug in cards in computers. Let me know what you think.
Mark @ GTS
Posted by Phillip Jackson (Member # 489) on 04-11-2001, 11:42 PM:
Hey Joe,What are you using to rip the tracks??
If ya using Windows you can get a CDFS.VXD file which will allow you to see .WAV files on the cd in Windows Explorer then just copy the tracks off.
If you would like i can email you the CDFS.VXD file.
Also use a "real" program 
to write audio cd's like Sonic Foundry's CD Architect.
Normalization is a gain process that optimizes a digital system's dynamic range basicly to use up all the bits avalible, it increases the highest amplitude siginal to the systems full-scale value and then increasing the rest of the file by that gain ratio.
so basicly just turns up the volume.
it won't "kill" your dynamic range.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-12-2001, 02:38 AM:
Alas, I got "Normilization" and "Compression" mixed up. Sorry.But seriously, I don't need three people telling me what normilization is before I even have a chance to respond. What is up with that? I know you all mean well, but it might be a good idea to read other people's responses before you hit that REPLY button.
Mark. I tend to agree and disagree. I know about jitter. But what about when you copy CD-ROMs? There really is little to no room for error when doing so. And before Scott comes in, I know about redundant data and error correction data. But to make a perfect copy of a CD-ROM, it is advised to read the disc at the same speed you plan to write the disc, preferably with the same unit doing the reading and writing. Yes, you still sometimes get errors.
It is at its worst with plug in computer cards? As opposed to what else? A sound card built into the motherboard? The article didn't go into that kind of depth or I just skipped over it.
Also, what is the difference between WAV and AIFF? On the PC, the CD burning software demands WAV files for burning CD-DA. On the Mac, it demands AIFF files. Both CD-DA quality WAV and AIFF files are exactly the same size for a file of a given length. Is it only the headers or something that are different? I can't imagine that the actual 0010010100100110 (yes Scott, that is a 16-bit sample but if it actually is not, oh well) sound data would differ since that is what is being written to CD. Or do CD programs convert WAV and AIFF into a different format (which would be raw CD-DA) and each platform (Mac and Windows) just prefers to convert from a different format? If this is the case, my problem is probably with the CD-DA conversion, because the tracks on the actual CD are ALWAYS noticeably louder than the tracks on my hard drive.
And yes, I do know that in Windows there are no less than 6,001 different volume sliders and it is possible the CD volume slider could be set louder than the other volume sliders. But I have burned CDs on the Mac with the same result, which has one volume slider (actually two but one is for alert sounds).
Posted by Kyle Abel (Member # 819) on 04-12-2001, 02:51 AM:
Maybe it has something to do with the makeup of the CD-R Vs. the regular produced CD? I'm sure software and hardware play a big role in it but maybe CD-R technology isn't quite there yet...------------------
Kyle Abel
General Manager
Plano Movies 10
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-12-2001, 03:01 AM:
Kyle, you may be right. I am used to recording with MiniDisc. With MD, what you hear is what you get. When burning a CD, it seems to go through much more.Although an ex-girlfriend had an audio-only CD-Recorder. It worked just like a MiniDisc in the fact that what you heard was what you got. It was just 10 times slower (it seemed) than MD.
Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 04-12-2001, 12:23 PM:
Commercially available CDs are physically stamped from a master, the same way that DVDs and laserdiscs are made, right?This is probably the only guaranteed way to ensure that each disc is an EXACT replica of the master and that each CD is technically identical.
Can burning a CD with a laser achieve the same result? I guess, in theory, it should be able to...can anyone expand on this? Is there a way to compare and analyse the exact content of a CD bit for bit?
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-13-2001, 10:04 AM:
Joe, He is referring to pro equipment VS. plug in sound cards in computers.
Also cd rom drives have horrible jitter specs unless it is a very high end CD ROM drive. All jitter adds up and if you keep making copies of copies of copies you would eventually end up with so much jitter that it wouldn;t even play back. Also remember that jitter is measured in picoseconds so it would take a while to add up but it really does come into play more so in cheap hime computer CD ROM drives.
Mark @ GTS
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-13-2001, 06:22 PM:
I can vouch for Philip Jackson's comment regarding Sonic Foundry CD Architect. The thing is amazing.It comes with a limited version of Sonic Foundry's audio editing program, Sound Forge. I purchased the upgrade to the full Sound Forge, which includes an excellent normalize function and a whole slew of other filters, effects, etc.
The only bad thing about all of the above is that CD Architect is no longer available! I'm hoping they re-instate the program to their catalog....it's among the best CD-making programs I've ever seen.
Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 04-18-2001, 11:57 AM:
Joe,
Someone has messed with your finger and drawn a hideous face on the tip blocking out everything else. It is really grusome and you need to get in touch with Brad (if your not him) and see if he can undo the damage. Tell him not to look directly at the photograph because the uglyness may be contagious.Good luck Joe, I hope you feel better. You can always expose yourself to a "Xenon Lamp"
Being Blind is better than having to look at that finger face in a mirror.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-18-2001, 01:14 PM:
That new photo of Joe reminds me of the evil Emperor in the Star Wars series. 
------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-18-2001, 01:38 PM:
Just watch yourself, Bob. It's 'cause of you that the expression changed! And it seemed to do it on its own. My forum picture is alive and thinking.
Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 04-18-2001, 01:45 PM:
Joe, I beg your forgiveness. Just tell me one thing...Is that your nose or your finger?Because if it's your nose...you may have a serious problem. If it's Brad's nose you have a larger than life problem. If it's Brad's finger, then I want to know, what it's doing near your nose.
Please let'us nose whaaat'sss uuuup.