"Best" burner for audio CD high quality ?

.. --------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/6eldj

(No Mikey S-Lickers have been able to prove ANY of the above is a LIBEL)
( )
( -- despite Mikey claimed to have proof of misquotes !! )
'

Sunny wrote:

I'm still using my old Mat****a 4x SCSI burner, which has always burned
excellent quality audio at 4x. Using high-speed media at this low speed
has not affected my results.

Do you suppose Mikey was not "more precisely" with these?

======================
From: Mike Richter (The Slimiest Friggin SOB)
Date: 8/18/02

There's a larger problem with your drive - its maximum 4x write
speed. Current media are optimized for high speed and while most
will write at 4x, they are unlikely to do it well.

======================
From: Mike Richter (The Slimiest Friggin ****)
Date: 10/9/03

In general, a rating for a higher speed is optimized for
higher-speed writers.

For example, 12x media seldom write well below 4x.

======================
From: Mike Richter (The Slimiest Friggin SOB)
Date: 8/4/05

Even the T-Y high-speed discs available under various rebadgers'
names do not write acceptably at 4x and below.
======================

.. --------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------

Mike Richter (The Slimiest Friggin ****) crapped:

Can someone recommend a writer that would be very high quality
for burning audio CDs ?

Now using AOpen burner and not satisfied with the audio output,
even when burning at low speed ( 4x)

However, modern (inexpensive) high-speed media may not be optimum
at such low speeds.

Only "may not" with "inexpensive" media when even the Taiyo Yuden did
not write acceptably at 4x? Maybe you are not "more precisely", Mikey?

======================
From: Mike Richter (The Slimiest Friggin SOB)
Date: 8/4/05

Even the T-Y high-speed discs available under various rebadgers'
names do not write acceptably at 4x and below.
======================

-------------------------------
Wow! What a slimy friggin SOB!
----------------------------------------
Mikey, you are the Slimiest Friggin SOB!
----------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------

Sunny wrote:


I must admit I seemed to be able to burn higher back when I had an 8x
than the last few burners I have had, all of which were high speed. I
just don't trust the gear now, nor the discs, to blast through
anything at max speed. the things I put on disc I want to keep, family
photos or artwork, things I'd like to keep and not risk a burn failing
soon after the act, which has happened to my high speed burns.

Indeed, that's why I resist the urge to "upgrade" - and even picked up a
couple of identical 4x burners for pocket change to keep as spares.

I wish I'd thought of that when I had the chance.

My equipment might be slow,

Ooer! :O)

but I don't mind waiting for results I can
trust - the discs I burned 10 years ago all read flawlessly today. More
recently I've had bad experiences with cheap media becoming unreadable
within months, so I try to buy quality media and read test it regularly
after burning.

I've noticed a correlation between the amount of time my old burner
takes to "accept" a blank and the longevity of the result. I've not had
a failure of any disc where the "busy" light went off within a couple of
seconds of closing the tray, whereas all the bad discs took at least 5
seconds - in some cases much longer. While I'm not suggesting "accept
time" can be used to assess media quality, it has proved to be a fairly
reliable indicator IME.

I agree entirely, this is an excellent point, and something people
probably don't often think about. I also like to see how quickly the
disc is accessible after burning. If if it seems sluggish I'll reboot
and check again, if it is still sluggish I'll do another burn.

I almost lost all our Summer 2003 family photos to a bad disc - none of
the optical drives in regular use here could read it. As a last resort,
I fired up an ancient Sun box I hadn't gotten around to tossing out or
donating to a museum. I did not expect the 2x Toshiba XM4101B drive
(manufactured 1993) in the Sun to read CDRs at all, but it eventually
retrieved the entire contents of the faulty disc :-)

Sunny

Heh... I had a similar misfortune, but kind of my own fault. when i
involuntarily moved from win98 to XP I didn't think about different
file systems or anything. I had a new batch of pictures and added them
to a half full cd, which promptly became unreadable, apparently due to
my having added the new images from XP onto a 98 disc. It just span
and clicked and span. I did some searching around and eventually
managed to find one of those data recovery programs which leached the
images off the disc.

--
Paul (Take my hand, I'm standing right here)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 23:40:24 +0200, "MoiMeme" wrote:

Ripping with EAC latest version to wav no compression
Burning with Feurio latest version; lowest speed available ( that is
accepted by the burner : lower does not respond)

Problem I have isn't volume / jumps / ... BUT quality and detail of sound
when playing back on my home HiFi ( particularly loss of fine details in
classical music, mostly in the medium range).

Have tried burning with my NEC DVD 3500A with better results, but still not
as good as original CD

It's much more likely to be an issue with the rip than in the burn.
First, start with the "error recovery" setting. Crank it to max. This
will give you the most accurate rips. On older versions, I think this
was "secure mode." Also, despite my previous advice, try it with and
without the "normalize" option enabled. The normalize function is a
nice feature, but it does modify the source stream, and you're going
for an accurate reproduction.

If that still doesn't work, and you're convinced it's a hardware
issue, it might be the level of jitter introduced into the copy as
DanG suggested. The BenQ DW series and all the current Plextor drives
have jitter compensation, but I'm reluctant to suggest going to the
expense of swapping out the drive, especially given that I don't think
it's likely this is the problem. As DanG also mentioned, the jitter
introduced by modern burners is pretty low.



---------------------------------------------
Thanks.


MCheu

Thanks Mike & other positive contributors
Will try to find one.
My current drives are "fastest" at the time bought, and I still do not think
it is possible to always produce best quality when doing faster.
Perhaps for data with error correction etc it is less relevant, but for
audio when details are important I really think there must be differences,
and I remember that I have regularly read papers on dat . audio / qualities
of drives / writers / media and that all are not necessarily correlated.

I also will try with higher quality media for those classical recordings


"Mike Richter" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
MoiMeme wrote:
Can someone recommend a writer that would be very high quality for
burning audio CDs ?

Now using AOpen burner and not satisfied with the audio output, even when
burning at low speed ( 4x)

The consensus among serious testers and archivists is that the 8x Plextors
were the best made. The margin from there to the 12x was slight and the
12x have BURNProof, so in practical terms they are the 'best' drives. You
may be able to find one refurbished. There is no consensus on the best (or
'least poor') combination drive when writing CDs.

Highest quality recording on CD depends on your drive but generally is in
the range of 8-16x. However, modern (inexpensive) high-speed media may not
be optimum at such low speeds. If you have a need to write at 4x and can
stand the price tag, check out the archival MAM-A media and those made for
medical imaging and records.

Mike
--

http://www.mrichter.com/

.. --------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/6eldj

(No Mikey S-Lickers have been able to prove ANY of the above is a LIBEL)
( -- despite Mikey claimed to have proof of misquotes !! )
'

Paul Heslop (Mikey S-Licker) slurped:

snip slurping

Can you make a guess why Mikey changed tunes from this:

======================
From: Mike Richter (The Slimiest Friggin SOB)
Date: 8/4/05

Even the T-Y high-speed discs available under various rebadgers'
names do not write acceptably at 4x and below.
======================

to this?

======================
From: Mike Richter (The Slimiest Friggin ****)
Date: 4/12/06

not satisfied with the audio output,
even when burning at low speed ( 4x)

modern (inexpensive) high-speed media may not be optimum
at such low speeds.
======================

Do you suppose this post may have something to do with the tune change?

======================
From: Sunny
Date: 4/12/06

I'm still using my old Mat****a 4x SCSI burner, which has always
burned excellent quality audio at 4x. Using high-speed media at
this low speed has not affected my results.
======================

----------------------------------------
Mikey, you are the Slimiest Friggin SOB!
----------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------