Dan Dugan wrote:
> Any digital transfer of information will involve reformatting of the
> data, but I can assure you that these processes are totally
> transparent to the data.
Agreed, as long as resampling is not involved.
> The problem is with ripping, not with the CD audio format. Because
> audio CDs are written in a continuous stream of CD frames instead of
> physical sectors, it's very difficult to load them in at high speed.
> The answer is to play them on a CD player with digital output, and
> capture the digital output in a workstation. This produces
> bit-perfect audio files unless the CD is grossly damaged.
I can do this at faster than 1x via the standard CD reader in my G4,
reliably and bit perfect as far as I can tell. I'm pretty sure my
machine is verifying the reads in this process, it's not doing it at the
full 32x speed of my CD reader. Maybe 5-10 minutes to do a full CD.
The problem is not ripping per se, the problem is there are a great many
rippers out there that are very substandard. This appears to be a common
problem in windows, but is very rare in macs.
It may also help to have a entire system capable of handling the stream
without error. Processor, bus, and hard disks enter into this. In the
case of windows the problem is usually various interrupts.
I pull the audio direct into Peak with no problem, maybe because the
program is designed to work all these variables. But, even the mp3
rippers I have don't have problems.
> Urethane, bad plastic! Seemed like a miracle substance at the time...
As a tape coating, you know better than I, but urethane is not
universally bad.
> I suggest archiving audio two ways:
>
> 1) as data CDRs of all the workstation session files including
> original audio files and bounced finished track files. This enables
> reloading the session when wanted for for further work, or loading
> just the bounce files when you want to burn more CDs;
>
> 2) as an audio CDR, which is convenient for just listening to
> something, and serves as a second archive of the bounce files if
> needed.
>
> The fly in the ointment of all CDR processes today is the changes in
> the blank stock that have been made to accommodate higher speed
> burning. Today's CDRs have lower modulation levels at any recording
> speed, and thus are more likely to have problems with a player/reader
> not in top condition.
Which is why it still pays to burn at slower speeds. They may not be as
thoroughly burned as older burners, but in my experience is better than
the fast speeds. My Audio CD's are listened to on all kinds of age of
regular audio CD players with no problems. And note that this same
problem is also a problem regardless of what format you burn on the
CD-R. Resist using the high speed burning for archives.
I also burn using Adaptec's Jam, which is a specialist burner for full
Red Book compliant Audio CD's.
This is exactly the sort of archive system I'm recommending. Audio CD is
just one leg of a complete archive system. Though I'm still not totally
trusting of CDR no matter how recorded. I have a proper optical drive
and trust that far more, that's the ultimate in archival formats. I
include Audio CD as insurance as it's probably going to be around longer
than any of the computer forms. And, of course it's convenient.
Note that my original comment was making the point that Hard Disks were
working formats and not archives. Getting and using a proper optical
drive is the ultimate in archiving, but there is some question of how
long it will be around in the US where zips killed practically
everything. If not taking that risk then your next choice in medium is
CDR. These are so cheap as blanks, even from quality companies, that you
can run several copies in different formats. I recommend at least one
set in ISO 9660 formatted CDR with files in .wav or .aif format. I also
recommend at least one copy in audio CD. Preferable is that you have
copies in each format stored in at least two independent places to cover
fire and so on.
In the near future DVD formats may become standardized enough to be
useful as archives. Right now we also don't have a lot of data on the
durability of the medium, and the formats seem still in flux.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|