Questions on CDR and MP3.

Hi,


I've some newbie questions regarding CDR and the likes.


1) What's the difference between ordinary CDR and Audio CDR, in terms
of quality ? Why's the Audio CDR so much more expensive ?? I've just
got an Audio CDR. The maker (TDK) claims that the Audio CDR can last
more than 100 years. Is this really true ??

2) Can the ordinary music lover tell the difference between a 128 kbps
mp3 and 160 kbps or 256 kbps? I already did this but my ear really
can't tell the difference but it may be because of some particular
music or songs.

3) Currently I'm using Reynolds permanent marker (xylene and toluene
free) to write on my CDR. Is this okay ?? Any recommendation for
suitable markers without causing damage to the CDR in the long run.



Thank You.



Toyota.

toyota liteace wrote:
Hi,


I've some newbie questions regarding CDR and the likes.


1) What's the difference between ordinary CDR and Audio CDR, in terms
of quality ? Why's the Audio CDR so much more expensive ?? I've just
got an Audio CDR. The maker (TDK) claims that the Audio CDR can last
more than 100 years. Is this really true ??

The only difference between data and audio discs is a code on the audio
discs that allows them to be used on stand-alone domestic recorders. As
audio discs are required to work at low speed (1X) their dye formulations
may not be optimal for current high speed writers so could provide poorer
results.

2) Can the ordinary music lover tell the difference between a 128 kbps
mp3 and 160 kbps or 256 kbps? I already did this but my ear really
can't tell the difference but it may be because of some particular
music or songs.

If you can't tell the difference don't worry about it. The greater the
compression, the more audible the artefacts of that compression will be. You
need to get up to 320kbps before it becomes difficult to distinguish between
mp3 and uncompressed material. The better the equipment you listen on, the
more obvious the differences.

3) Currently I'm using Reynolds permanent marker (xylene and toluene
free) to write on my CDR. Is this okay ?? Any recommendation for
suitable markers without causing damage to the CDR in the long run.

I never write on my audio discs. The back of the disc is where the data is
stored and is easily damaged by the careless application of a marking pen -
I prefer good quality glossy labels with Stomper labels being the best.

--

Graham Mayor





Thank You.



Toyota.

On 29 Aug 2003 04:10:22 -0700, (toyota liteace)
wrote:

Hi,


I've some newbie questions regarding CDR and the likes.


1) What's the difference between ordinary CDR and Audio CDR, in terms
of quality ? Why's the Audio CDR so much more expensive ?? I've just
got an Audio CDR. The maker (TDK) claims that the Audio CDR can last
more than 100 years. Is this really true ??

There is little difference between audio and CDR disks. The RIAA gets
a fee (levy) for each audio disk you buy (to offset the cost of
"piracy"). The audio disks are needed for home CD recorders because
of some code they are imprinted with (can you make an audio CD from a
CDR using a computer? I don't know the answer to that one). The
computer CDR's may be of higher quality because they have to record at
higher speeds.

Check the newsgroups and you will find an everlasting thread regarding
just which CDR is better. I've used them all and only had some
problems with Maxell discs (won't record at all, or won't play back on
an audio CD player) 3 out of 50 failed this way. The ones that worked
are still working.

Last 100 years, probably under ideal conditions of storage. Then too
they probably don't figure on many people lasting long enough to
exercise the warranty. Leave one in a car on hot summer days, and it
can die in a few days, leave it on the dash in the sun and it can die
in minutes, take a propane torch to it . . .

2) Can the ordinary music lover tell the difference between a 128 kbps
mp3 and 160 kbps or 256 kbps? I already did this but my ear really
can't tell the difference but it may be because of some particular
music or songs.

There are no ordinary music lovers . . . it will depend on your ears,
the equipment you play it through, how fussy (escuse me, "particular")
you are, and the program material. If you are listening to Rock and
Roll where there's lots of distortion, or it was recorded from tape a
long time ago, 128 is good enough for most people. If you are
comparing a digitally mastered CD where they have taken pains to get
it right (some Sony, many Dorian label CDs) 256 or 320 is good enough.
Use a variable bit rate encoder when you need fidelity and can't waste
space.

I find I can't tell the bit rate on the Altec Lansing speakers that
are on the computer, but can on my stereo system, 400 watt bi-amp'd
and Electro Voice speakers.

3) Currently I'm using Reynolds permanent marker (xylene and toluene
free) to write on my CDR. Is this okay ?? Any recommendation for
suitable markers without causing damage to the CDR in the long run.

There's a lot of controversy over markers. Personally I use a Sharpie
and haven't had a problem. Some CDR's are painted or coated to make
marking safer, but even the ones that aren't have worked well for me.
Doubtless there's a marker out there that will eat a CDR - I just
haven't found it yet.

Thank You.



Toyota.



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

G.

You say you stick labels on CD's - don't they make extra vibration, since
they ruin balance of the CDR? Or do you mean CD labels (round ones)---they
are pretty expensive...


Graham Mayor wrote:
toyota liteace wrote:
Hi,


I've some newbie questions regarding CDR and the likes.


1) What's the difference between ordinary CDR and Audio CDR, in terms
of quality ? Why's the Audio CDR so much more expensive ?? I've just
got an Audio CDR. The maker (TDK) claims that the Audio CDR can last
more than 100 years. Is this really true ??

The only difference between data and audio discs is a code on the
audio discs that allows them to be used on stand-alone domestic
recorders. As audio discs are required to work at low speed (1X)
their dye formulations may not be optimal for current high speed
writers so could provide poorer results.

2) Can the ordinary music lover tell the difference between a 128
kbps mp3 and 160 kbps or 256 kbps? I already did this but my ear
really can't tell the difference but it may be because of some
particular music or songs.

If you can't tell the difference don't worry about it. The greater the
compression, the more audible the artefacts of that compression will
be. You need to get up to 320kbps before it becomes difficult to
distinguish between mp3 and uncompressed material. The better the
equipment you listen on, the more obvious the differences.

3) Currently I'm using Reynolds permanent marker (xylene and toluene
free) to write on my CDR. Is this okay ?? Any recommendation for
suitable markers without causing damage to the CDR in the long run.

I never write on my audio discs. The back of the disc is where the
data is stored and is easily damaged by the careless application of a
marking pen - I prefer good quality glossy labels with Stomper labels
being the best.



Thank You.



Toyota.

I mean the round - expensive disc sized ones. These barely affect the
balance of the disc when playing audio on a CD player. Data discs which can
rotate at very high speeds are another matter, though to be fair I have not
experience any problems with these either.

--

Graham Mayor






SleeperMan wrote:
G.

You say you stick labels on CD's - don't they make extra vibration,
since they ruin balance of the CDR? Or do you mean CD labels (round
ones)---they are pretty expensive...


Graham Mayor wrote:
toyota liteace wrote:
Hi,


I've some newbie questions regarding CDR and the likes.


1) What's the difference between ordinary CDR and Audio CDR, in
terms of quality ? Why's the Audio CDR so much more expensive ??
I've just got an Audio CDR. The maker (TDK) claims that the Audio
CDR can last more than 100 years. Is this really true ??

The only difference between data and audio discs is a code on the
audio discs that allows them to be used on stand-alone domestic
recorders. As audio discs are required to work at low speed (1X)
their dye formulations may not be optimal for current high speed
writers so could provide poorer results.

2) Can the ordinary music lover tell the difference between a 128
kbps mp3 and 160 kbps or 256 kbps? I already did this but my ear
really can't tell the difference but it may be because of some
particular music or songs.

If you can't tell the difference don't worry about it. The greater
the compression, the more audible the artefacts of that compression
will be. You need to get up to 320kbps before it becomes difficult to
distinguish between mp3 and uncompressed material. The better the
equipment you listen on, the more obvious the differences.

3) Currently I'm using Reynolds permanent marker (xylene and toluene
free) to write on my CDR. Is this okay ?? Any recommendation for
suitable markers without causing damage to the CDR in the long run.

I never write on my audio discs. The back of the disc is where the
data is stored and is easily damaged by the careless application of a
marking pen - I prefer good quality glossy labels with Stomper labels
being the best.



Thank You.



Toyota.

That's what i meant... i used to use those, too, but at the end i calculated
they are just too expensive (i mean, marker is cheaper :-))).
I didn't have any problems with marker (YET!) I hope i won't...

Graham Mayor wrote:
I mean the round - expensive disc sized ones. These barely affect the
balance of the disc when playing audio on a CD player. Data discs
which can rotate at very high speeds are another matter, though to be
fair I have not experience any problems with these either.


SleeperMan wrote:
G.

You say you stick labels on CD's - don't they make extra vibration,
since they ruin balance of the CDR? Or do you mean CD labels (round
ones)---they are pretty expensive...


Graham Mayor wrote:
toyota liteace wrote:
Hi,


I've some newbie questions regarding CDR and the likes.


1) What's the difference between ordinary CDR and Audio CDR, in
terms of quality ? Why's the Audio CDR so much more expensive ??
I've just got an Audio CDR. The maker (TDK) claims that the Audio
CDR can last more than 100 years. Is this really true ??

The only difference between data and audio discs is a code on the
audio discs that allows them to be used on stand-alone domestic
recorders. As audio discs are required to work at low speed (1X)
their dye formulations may not be optimal for current high speed
writers so could provide poorer results.

2) Can the ordinary music lover tell the difference between a 128
kbps mp3 and 160 kbps or 256 kbps? I already did this but my ear
really can't tell the difference but it may be because of some
particular music or songs.

If you can't tell the difference don't worry about it. The greater
the compression, the more audible the artefacts of that compression
will be. You need to get up to 320kbps before it becomes difficult
to distinguish between mp3 and uncompressed material. The better the
equipment you listen on, the more obvious the differences.

3) Currently I'm using Reynolds permanent marker (xylene and
toluene free) to write on my CDR. Is this okay ?? Any
recommendation for suitable markers without causing damage to the
CDR in the long run.

I never write on my audio discs. The back of the disc is where the
data is stored and is easily damaged by the careless application of
a marking pen - I prefer good quality glossy labels with Stomper
labels being the best.



Thank You.



Toyota.

Cheapskate :-)

Personally I don't mind spending 30p on a label for the level of
presentation this, in conjunction with Surething, allows:
http://www.cdr-by-mail.co.uk/acatalo..._16.html#gloss

--

Graham Mayor





SleeperMan wrote:
That's what i meant... i used to use those, too, but at the end i
calculated they are just too expensive (i mean, marker is cheaper
:-))).
I didn't have any problems with marker (YET!) I hope i won't...

Graham Mayor wrote:
I mean the round - expensive disc sized ones. These barely affect the
balance of the disc when playing audio on a CD player. Data discs
which can rotate at very high speeds are another matter, though to be
fair I have not experience any problems with these either.


SleeperMan wrote:
G.

You say you stick labels on CD's - don't they make extra vibration,
since they ruin balance of the CDR? Or do you mean CD labels (round
ones)---they are pretty expensive...


Graham Mayor wrote:
toyota liteace wrote:
Hi,


I've some newbie questions regarding CDR and the likes.


1) What's the difference between ordinary CDR and Audio CDR, in
terms of quality ? Why's the Audio CDR so much more expensive ??
I've just got an Audio CDR. The maker (TDK) claims that the Audio
CDR can last more than 100 years. Is this really true ??

The only difference between data and audio discs is a code on the
audio discs that allows them to be used on stand-alone domestic
recorders. As audio discs are required to work at low speed (1X)
their dye formulations may not be optimal for current high speed
writers so could provide poorer results.

2) Can the ordinary music lover tell the difference between a 128
kbps mp3 and 160 kbps or 256 kbps? I already did this but my ear
really can't tell the difference but it may be because of some
particular music or songs.

If you can't tell the difference don't worry about it. The greater
the compression, the more audible the artefacts of that compression
will be. You need to get up to 320kbps before it becomes difficult
to distinguish between mp3 and uncompressed material. The better
the equipment you listen on, the more obvious the differences.

3) Currently I'm using Reynolds permanent marker (xylene and
toluene free) to write on my CDR. Is this okay ?? Any
recommendation for suitable markers without causing damage to the
CDR in the long run.

I never write on my audio discs. The back of the disc is where the
data is stored and is easily damaged by the careless application of
a marking pen - I prefer good quality glossy labels with Stomper
labels being the best.



Thank You.



Toyota.

(snip)

If you stick to mp3 (why?), always use VBR (Variable Bit Rate), since it
gives better quality. I recommend 160VBR (which means, some parts in the
song will only use 16kps, while others may use 256 or more). Note that Ogg
Vorbis is also VBR. In general, Ogg Vorbis is better than any other format
I tried.


-- Niko

Have you run into problems with equipment or software when it comes to
ogg vorbis?

Seems to me it is a better format, but I have trouble converting them
to audio for burning. Then there is relatively little ogg on
fileshare or usenet.



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

SleeperMan wrote:

Nikos Chantziaras wrote:

toyota liteace wrote:
[...]
2) Can the ordinary music lover tell the difference between a 128
kbps mp3 and 160 kbps or 256 kbps? I already did this but my ear
really can't tell the difference but it may be because of some
particular music or songs.

[...] But why don't you just use Ogg Vorbis? 160kbps Ogg Vorbis
files sound the same as 256kbps (or even 320) mp3 files. I made
the switch, and I must say Ogg is even better than I expected.
[...]

I tried vorbis once in various formats and filesizes came out as
many as 15 M and more...in this case it's better just to leave song
in Wav format.

Ogg is a relatively new format. It isn't too long ago since the first 1.0
stable version was released. With that, and at quality setting 5 (the scale
is -1 to 10; currently, 5 is 160kbps VBR, and the standard "good quality"
setting is 3, representing 112kbps VBR), I get *better* quality than a VBR
mp3 at the highest possible quality (256kbps VBR), especially with Metal and
Psychedelic Trance music (no mp3 bitrate can decently encode the base-drum
of a P.T. piece). At the same time, file size is as small as a 160kbps CBR
mp3.


Second, if you heard the difference, then you didn't use big enough
rate. Using VBR high quality in mp3 difference is not heard, but it
is if you use 128 kbit CBR or even 160. files come out 5-7M long.

I only use VBR for mp3. But Ogg gives much, much better quality at the same
bitrates, and the same quality at much lower ones. Really, try the newest
version from the Ogg site; you won't be disappointed. I only use mp3 for
hardware mp3-players.


-- Niko

One more thing: what do you use for encoding ? on vorbis.com site there's
such a mess that i can't find anything decent...