posted
Does anyone no about what brand of recordable CD's are good or bad? Right now I have TDK (i think)...do u know of any brands that put out some bad cd's or does it even matter which brand u get?
------------------
Current System: 2 RF XLC 10's 1 RF 250a2 2 Polk Audio 6½'s
Posts: 131 | From: Greenleaf, ID, US | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
With my experience of recording cd's, you should stick to Sony, HP, and Maxxel. If you really want identical recordings you must use a high dollar cd, therefore i prefer sony. You can buy bargain packs of 50 or so, but these after some use and exposure to temp above 65-70 begin to "crackle". This is due to the breakdown of the dye. Another thing to remember no matter what brand you use is to ALWAYS record at 1X speed for the deepest burn possible so that the quality is at the highest it can be. Hope this will help some!!!
------------------
Posts: 83 | From: Woodburn, IN, USA | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Moron I am, I put $100 a cd. I ment' $1 a cd which is steep concluding that you can get good spools of 100 for about 60 - 70 bucks. The recording speed don't matter. It's how you RECORD and wha progam you use. I have always recorded at 4x and hasn't never made a cd sound bad, (Unless was converted with winamp with EQ settings on) But I use mp3-to-wav now. so all my bootlegs sound GREAT.
------------------
Posts: 3 | From: Brookville, IN USA | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree - record speed DON'T MATTER. I record audio at 8x
You can only tell how good of a blank you have when you've burned about 100 of 'em. A few good ones don't always cut it.
By far the biggest factor in CD recording is your hardware and not your media. It'll cost $500 just for good CD recorder HW, (dual SCSI drives and a card), plus the PC, but boy it screams!
ironsides@goplay.com
------------------
Posts: 70 | From: San Jose, CA | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sony's and Maxell's work best for writing data cd's on my HP 7200. Oddly enough my Alpine deck has a hard time finding the tracks on Sony's, it likes BASF and won't play any CD-RW's regardless of brand.
posted
Greenenvy, ironsides: you guys on crack??? If you burn a cd at 1x speed then another at 4x speed and play it say 4 months, i guarantee the 1x speed will play with less skips (therefore better sound quality!!!). if your burning at 4 or even 8, your just skimming the surface. basically you guys are saying build an sub enclosure out of plywood and glue it together with elmer's all-purpose glue, why not go all-out and overdo everything you do?? BURN NO HIGHER THAN 1X SPEED, PERIOD!!!
------------------
Posts: 83 | From: Woodburn, IN, USA | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've had a CD burner for about 4 years now, (back when blanks were about $8 each.) I've yet to hear any deterioration of any of my disks. Skipping? Never happened on any of my burned disks.
Now, what you perhaps are referring to is an inferior burn setup. If you have a bad setup, the buffer will sometimes run dry or the laser won't burn all of the pits and "dead air" areas will happen with your disk.
In order to burn at 8X, you need VERY good quality hardware. I have an all SCSI setup with a Kenwood TrueX 52X SCSI CD reader. It's the fastest reader on the market - period. (as of today of course!). I have an HP 9200i SCSI cd writer to go with it.
If you have a parallel port or IDE based setup, yeah, you may have to burn at 1X due to having inferior hardware.
Another point was made regarding burning for audio at 1X and data at higher rates. How does this make sense? CD redbook is just 1's and 0's just like any data disks. Capacity is equal for data and audio, so, you have the same spacing for the 1's and 0's for both formats. If your theory was true, we'd have to burn data at 1X too or we'd have programs or pictures or whatever you store on your CD's that would all of a sudden not work.
Plain and simple - technology has gotten better in CD recording in order to burn at 8X very efficiently. I'm thinking that you seem to think that at 8X you get 1/8'th the real data on there or something or that the burns on the disk are 1/8'th the depth or something. That isn't the truth at all.
If you still think I'm wrong, I'd love to hear your reasons why. But, I would like to see some scientific backing of your claims as to why 1X will work better than 8X. My guess is you have a hardware problem.
SP ironsides@goplay.com
------------------
[This message has been edited by ironsides (edited 04-24-2000).]
Posts: 70 | From: San Jose, CA | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GreenEnvy: Moron I am, I put $100 a cd. I ment' $1 a cd which is steep concluding that you can get good spools of 100 for about 60 - 70 bucks. The recording speed don't matter. It's how you RECORD and wha progam you use. I have always recorded at 4x and hasn't never made a cd sound bad, (Unless was converted with winamp with EQ settings on) But I use mp3-to-wav now. so all my bootlegs sound GREAT.
Printer-friendly view of this topic