Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sunflute]

Hello Everyone,

This may be an incredibly simple question....but,

A friend of mine brought me a copy of her mastered CD and wants to have a exact copy of it before she sends it in for duplication. (The reason for this, is that she almost lost her master CD when Europa Disk went bankrupt) Now she wants to make sure she has a back-up copy no matter what.

What's the best way to make an exact copy?

I work on the PC, and work with Samplitude, CD Architect and Sound Forge.

Thanks in advance for you suggestions.

Peace
Marco

PS She doesn't want to go back to whoever mastered it in the first place.

[bblackwood]

I'd create an image file using ExactAudioCopy.

You can get it free here...

[Ged Leitch]

Yep, best to create an image file.
If using CD architect then use extract audio at 1x speed and also extract subcodes.

[sunflute]

Thank you so much Gentlemen,

Peace
Marco

[jazzius]

bblackwood wrote on Sun, 14 August 2005 22:55

I'd create an image file using ExactAudioCopy. You can get it free here...

Can you change the ISRC codes with EAC?.....

[Jerry Tubb]

is there a cue sheet with the disc, that shows CD Text, ISRC codes, and UPC code?

Are they imbedded with the image? Would you add those during the new burn?

Should you extract the audio on the same burner, or a Plex?

What bit depth on the extraction? What about the burn speed?

Stereo Interleaved or Dual Mono? WAV, AIFF, or SD2 formats?

Will the two discs sound identical ? what if they don't ?

Do you leave the pre-gaps alone? are there any offsets,  index markers?

Do you apply any dither on the new burn? what type ?

Should you use the same media as the master? what if it's a black memorex.

Do you proof the disc, run it thru Plextools for QC?

Do CDs spin the other direction in Australia?

There are questions, many questions, some valid, some not, some rhetorical, can you sort them out?

Just havin' a little fun tonight  !

Peace Bro...

[Chris Cavell]

Quote:

Do CDs spin the other direction in Australia?

Thanks JT, I nearly fell out of my chair when I read that this morning.

[Ronny]

Chris Cavell wrote on Mon, 15 August 2005 06:50

Quote: Do CDs spin the other direction in Australia? Thanks JT, I nearly fell out of my chair when I read that this morning.

Yes, that was the best post of the day, JT.

[OTR-jkl]

OK; ya'll are gonna think I'm crazy, but...

...considering my recent past experience with Loadback issues (see this thread, I decided to extract the audio off of my Crane Song Dither CD using EAC thinking I could get the information off of it more accurately than when I did it before I had EAC.

I put the newly extracted dither up on another track in the EDL of a current project and A/B'd the two dither tracks mixing with a song file. I could actually hear a difference - and I liked it with the "EAC dither" better. To make sure I wasn't crazy, I bounced the tune to 2 different files - each one using a different dither track - and then placed those 2 new files on a new EDL and did a null check. They didn't - to the tune of about -52.0 dbFs peak.

Well, then I wondered if it was different because of EAC (better extraction) or simply because the 2 dithers were starting at different points relative to the beginning of its file (make sense?). (Zooming in on the dither track shows different waveforms at the same time reference.) So, to really tell I needed to line the dithers up as closely as possible - which I was able to do easily. I re-ran the null test and this time they DID null.

The point:
I thought this was going to be another kudo for EAC, but as it turns out, its more about CS Dither than EAC. Apparently, it makes a difference where you start CS Dither - I have no technical idea why. Kinda-sorta-not-really-in-a-way makes sense though since its a definitive waveform. Scary part is that you have no way of knowing how any given tune would change with movement of the dither along the timeline (so how do you know when the song is sounding its absolute best?). I guess you have to start it at the beginning for every song (instead of just letting it "roll").

Speaking of roll...  

(I'm really not sitting over here freaking out about dither...really......)  

However, I will still use EAC for all of my Loadbacks.

(Sorry for the hijack...)

[jackthebear]

Chris Cavell wrote on Mon, 15 August 2005 20:50

Quote: Do CDs spin the other direction in Australia? Thanks JT, I nearly fell out of my chair when I read that this morning.

,sreehC

.rednals dna pissog  luof lla s'ti gniyas yb htym eht llepsid em tel.......ailartsuA ni sdrawkcab gneib sgniht lla tuoba yas yam srehto tahw etipseD

[Chris Cavell]

 

[Ronny]

OTR-jkl wrote on Mon, 15 August 2005 14:53

OK; ya'll are gonna think I'm crazy, but... ...considering my recent past experience with Loadback issues (see this thread, I decided to extract the audio off of my Crane Song Dither CD using EAC thinking I could get the information off of it more accurately than when I did it before I had EAC. I put the newly extracted dither up on another track in the EDL of a current project and A/B'd the two dither tracks mixing with a song file. I could actually hear a difference - and I liked it with the "EAC dither" better. To make sure I wasn't crazy, I bounced the tune to 2 different files - each one using a different dither track - and then placed those 2 new files on a new EDL and did a null check. They didn't - to the tune of about -52.0 dbFs peak. Well, then I wondered if it was different because of EAC (better extraction) or simply because the 2 dithers were starting at different points relative to the beginning of its file (make sense?). (Zooming in on the dither track shows different waveforms at the same time reference.) So, to really tell I needed to line the dithers up as closely as possible - which I was able to do easily. I re-ran the null test and this time they DID null. The point: I thought this was going to be another kudo for EAC, but as it turns out, its more about CS Dither than EAC. Apparently, it makes a difference where you start CS Dither - I have no technical idea why. Kinda-sorta-not-really-in-a-way makes sense though since its a definitive waveform. Scary part is that you have no way of knowing how any given tune would change with movement of the dither along the timeline (so how do you know when the song is sounding its absolute best?). I guess you have to start it at the beginning for every song (instead of just letting it "roll"). Speaking of roll...   (I'm really not sitting over here freaking out about dither...really......)   However, I will still use EAC for all of my Loadbacks. (Sorry for the hijack...)

If two exact examples aren't time aligned down to the sample, you aren't going to get a null, amplitude must start at the same timeline spot on both. You should null at least down to -92dB when null testing dither on final 16 bit. There are some other problems with some DAW progs, for example if you load in one stereo track and copy from that one, than invert the original, the second one inverts as well and you will get a +6dB boost when mixing them together quite the opposite of a null even when sample for sample accurate, if your DAW does that, instead of copying and pasting the second file, load it in twice.

[ElectricHead]

If you want the best sound quality:
1. Rip the tracks with WaveLab and the ultra safe mode (min. x2 reading and comparing) and as slow as possible (max. x4).
2. Render it with the MegaBitMax Ultra dither/ns.
3. Make a audio montage and copy it on a SONY Supremas CD-R.
4. The CD-R should be cyrogenically treated before and after the recording (max. x4) and paint the edges with a light-green colored laquer pen.

If you want a identical copy without sonic improvement skip the rendering with MegaBitMax.

Forget the image thing and forget EAC even Nero is better! The thing with EAC is just a myth, in terms of sound quality EAC is maybe the worst of all the programs out there. Listen and you will find out.

[bblackwood]

ElectricHead wrote on Thu, 18 August 2005 18:54

If you want the best sound quality: 1. Rip the tracks with WaveLab and the ultra safe mode (min. x2 reading and comparing) and as slow as possible (max. x4).

Fair enough.

Quote:

2. Render it with the MegaBitMax Ultra dither/ns.

Why dither a 16 bit file when the final delivery medium is 16 bit and there will be no further DSP?

Strike one.

Quote:

3. Make a audio montage and copy it on a SONY Supremas CD-R.

Again, fair enough.

Quote:

4. The CD-R should be cyrogenically treated before and after the recording (max. x4) and paint the edges with a light-green colored laquer pen.

Oh crap, this is just preposterous.

Strike two.

Quote:

If you want a identical copy without sonic improvement skip the rendering with MegaBitMax.

Dithering which provides "sonic improvement"?

Quote:

Forget the image thing and forget EAC even Nero is better! The thing with EAC is just a myth, in terms of sound quality EAC is maybe the worst of all the programs out there. Listen and you will find out.

STEEEEEEEERIKE THREE! YER OUT!

Please, this is not some crackpot audiophile forum - if you wish to post stuff like this, let's have some proof that goes against years of both science and professional mastering engineers' experience...

[ElectricHead]

2. = You are not a professional mastering engineer at least I hope so cos normally they would know that the internal calculations in WaveLab are done in 32bits so when you want 16bit in the end you have to render it...as simple as that.

4. = You think that this is crap? I think that you don't know anything about science!

Quote from Hi-Fi News and Record Review, July 2001.

"INTERVIEW

Here Ed Meitner of EMM Labs talks about his pioneering work with cryogenic treatment.

'We know what copper looks like under heavy magnification - it has a very erratic lattice structure, and we know that this comes from the way it is made. Most materials come from a liquid and are shocked, more or less, into a solid. So the lattice structure of the material isn't in its natural state. What this does is produce stress, residual stress.

'If you treat the material at low temperatures, where the strength of the atomic bonds starts to diminish it reverts to the natural crystal structure. So this process relieves the residual stress. It is a function of temperature and time. The absolute temperature doesn't matter very much, but if you only go down to, say, -200