According to a recent issue of "Consumer Reports" magazine, "Once you've burned a CD, you can't make digital copies of it." "When you burn a copy of a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And copies might not be as high quality as originals, although the average ear won't be able to hear the difference."
This is the first I've ever heard of this. I thought all original and burned copies are digital and exactly the same.
On Aug 3, 3:54 pm, "MIFrost" <sfro...@NOSPAMnycap.rr.com> wrote:
> According to a recent issue of "Consumer Reports" magazine, "Once you've > burned a CD, you can't make digital copies of it." "When you burn a copy of > a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And copies might not be as > high quality as originals, although the average ear won't be able to hear > the difference."
> This is the first I've ever heard of this. I thought all original and burned > copies are digital and exactly the same.
> Yes? No?
> MIFrost
They're talking about Audio CDs burned in standalone CD burners. They're rigged as per the audio home recordings act.
> According to a recent issue of "Consumer Reports" magazine, "Once you've > burned a CD, you can't make digital copies of it." "When you burn a copy > of a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And copies might not be > as high quality as originals, although the average ear won't be able to > hear the difference."
> This is the first I've ever heard of this. I thought all original and > burned copies are digital and exactly the same.
<sfro...@NOSPAMnycap.rr.com> wrote: >According to a recent issue of "Consumer Reports" magazine, "Once you've >burned a CD, you can't make digital copies of it." "When you burn a copy of >a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And copies might not be as >high quality as originals, although the average ear won't be able to hear >the difference."
>This is the first I've ever heard of this. I thought all original and burned >copies are digital and exactly the same.
>Yes? No?
>MIFrost
CR's electronic reviews have always been riduclous. Let them stick to tuna fish.
When VHS came out, they said that all machines played the same and the differences in price were for the features
I read the intro to the article you referenced. 10x and 20x burning is no good? They have alot of nerve representing themselves as experts, if they say this. 1x burning thre only valid speed? Total crap
> On Aug 3, 3:54 pm, "MIFrost" <sfro...@NOSPAMnycap.rr.com> wrote: >> According to a recent issue of "Consumer Reports" magazine, "Once you've >> burned a CD, you can't make digital copies of it." "When you burn a copy >> of >> a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And copies might not be as >> high quality as originals, although the average ear won't be able to hear >> the difference."
>> This is the first I've ever heard of this. I thought all original and >> burned >> copies are digital and exactly the same.
>> Yes? No?
>> MIFrost
> They're talking about Audio CDs burned in standalone CD burners. > They're rigged as per the audio home recordings act.
I burn music CDs via the CD burner in my computer. Is my copy digital in that case? Is it "the same" as the original?
> > On Aug 3, 3:54 pm, "MIFrost" <sfro...@NOSPAMnycap.rr.com> wrote: > >> According to a recent issue of "Consumer Reports" magazine, "Once you've > >> burned a CD, you can't make digital copies of it." "When you burn a copy > >> of > >> a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And copies might not be as > >> high quality as originals, although the average ear won't be able to hear > >> the difference."
> >> This is the first I've ever heard of this. I thought all original and > >> burned > >> copies are digital and exactly the same.
> >> Yes? No?
> >> MIFrost
> > They're talking about Audio CDs burned in standalone CD burners. > > They're rigged as per the audio home recordings act.
> I burn music CDs via the CD burner in my computer. Is my copy digital in > that case? Is it "the same" as the original?
> MIFrost
Yes. Reading the Act will clear up the issue for you.
MIFrost wrote: > <beartiger....@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1186182568.245827.142280@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> On Aug 3, 3:54 pm, "MIFrost" <sfro...@NOSPAMnycap.rr.com> wrote: >>> According to a recent issue of "Consumer Reports" magazine, "Once you've >>> burned a CD, you can't make digital copies of it." "When you burn a copy >>> of >>> a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And copies might not be as >>> high quality as originals, although the average ear won't be able to hear >>> the difference."
>>> This is the first I've ever heard of this. I thought all original and >>> burned >>> copies are digital and exactly the same.
>>> Yes? No?
>>> MIFrost >> They're talking about Audio CDs burned in standalone CD burners. >> They're rigged as per the audio home recordings act.
> I burn music CDs via the CD burner in my computer. Is my copy digital in > that case? Is it "the same" as the original?
It's digital. And if you use something like EAC or Sonic RecordNow, it's identical to the original. If you ripped to MP3 and then burned, you've probably lost some information, and it's not identical.
MIFrost wrote: > <beartiger....@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1186182568.245827.142280@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> On Aug 3, 3:54 pm, "MIFrost" <sfro...@NOSPAMnycap.rr.com> wrote: >>> According to a recent issue of "Consumer Reports" magazine, "Once you've >>> burned a CD, you can't make digital copies of it." "When you burn a copy >>> of >>> a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And copies might not be as >>> high quality as originals, although the average ear won't be able to hear >>> the difference."
>>> This is the first I've ever heard of this. I thought all original and >>> burned >>> copies are digital and exactly the same.
>>> Yes? No?
>>> MIFrost >> They're talking about Audio CDs burned in standalone CD burners. >> They're rigged as per the audio home recordings act.
> I burn music CDs via the CD burner in my computer. Is my copy digital in > that case?
Yes.
> Is it "the same" as the original?
Yes. Virtually the same. Probably not 100% bit for bit the same, but close enough that with error correction it's the same.
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 18:54:13 -0400, "MIFrost" > <sfro...@NOSPAMnycap.rr.com> wrote:
>>According to a recent issue of "Consumer Reports" magazine, "Once you've >>burned a CD, you can't make digital copies of it." "When you burn a copy >>of >>a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And copies might not be as >>high quality as originals, although the average ear won't be able to hear >>the difference."
>>This is the first I've ever heard of this. I thought all original and >>burned >>copies are digital and exactly the same.
>>Yes? No?
>>MIFrost
> CR's electronic reviews have always been riduclous. Let them stick to > tuna fish.
Tuna fish? I wouldn't accept their word on toilet paper.
> When VHS came out, they said that all machines played the same and the > differences in price were for the features
> I read the intro to the article you referenced. 10x and 20x burning is > no good? They have alot of nerve representing themselves as experts, > if they say this. 1x burning thre only valid speed? Total crap
Norman M. Schwartz wrote: > "ansermetniac" <ansermetn...@hotmail.com> ranted in message >> CR's electronic reviews have always been riduclous. Let them stick to >> tuna fish.
> Tuna fish? I wouldn't accept their word on toilet paper.
> Tuna fish? I wouldn't accept their word on toilet paper.
I've been reading CR for over 40 years. My experience has been that, when I've owned products they've tested (either before or after), my reaction to them is very much like CU's. I _generally_ trust their reviews, thought not blindly.
The major exception is the Sonicare, which like every other powered toothbrush, they have found inferior to manual brushing. This directly contradicts my experience, and the experience of everyone I know who owns it, including my dental hygienist. (CU's claim that, performed correctly, manual brushing always does the best job, might be true -- if one assumes most people don't know how to do it properly. But it overlooks the common-sense observation that there ought to be both qualitative and quantitative differences when using a powered brush.)
One should remember in reading CR that the testing is performed by human beings, who sometimes make mistakes, and that the results of their testing depend on how they choose to test. And their choices aren't always correct.
One of their classic errors (which no one seems to have caught) involved testing car bumpers. They simply bashed the bumper with a ram moving at the same speed a car would move, arguing that, by the principle of Special Relativity, it didn't matter whether the car moved or the basher moved. This overlooked the fact that a moving car has significantly more kinetic energy than the basher, and that (in this case) there _is_ an absolute frame of inertial reference -- the floor.
>> When VHS came out, they said that all machines played >> the same and the differences in price were for the features.
I don't remember that observation, but I'd be inclined to agree with CU. VHS is of such poor overall quality that there's little point in making fine distinctions among machines. The end-of-an-era machines, which include TBC, show a meaningful improvement in image quality, but it's still, overall, "crapvision".
One other point...
I've noticed an increasing number of misstatements and even errors in CR's articles. It appears that their people simply aren't keeping up with technology in the depth they need to.
> CDs are digital. There is no such thing as an "analog CD".
That's what I thought. But what does this other poster mean by, "They're talking about Audio CDs burned in standalone CD burners. They're rigged as per the audio home recordings act."?
>> CDs are digital. There is no such thing as an "analog CD".
> That's what I thought. But what does this other poster mean by, "They're > talking about Audio CDs burned in standalone CD burners. > They're rigged as per the audio home recordings act."?
> MIFrost
Also digital. "Audio" CDs, e.g. Maxell CD-Rmusic, have a 'hardwired' code bit that stand-alone burners look for. Consumer-grade stand-alone burners can't burn standard media, only because that code bit is missing.
> > CDs are digital. There is no such thing as an "analog CD".
> That's what I thought. But what does this other poster mean by, "They're > talking about Audio CDs burned in standalone CD burners. > They're rigged as per the audio home recordings act."?
Did you read the Audio Home Recordings Act? That would answer your question. Google and all that. There's a nice wikipedia article. (NB, this is an American Law: CR is an American magazine).
If you aren't a perverse literalist, there is, in fact, such a thing as an "analog CD". This is a CD onto which has been coded (digitally, of course) an analog signal. That's all the CR people mean. In their review, for legal reasons the reviewers are likely talking about CDRs recorded in standalone CD burners. Such burners are set up such that the first copy of a given CD is made with a digital signal. Subsequent copies are made with an analog signal. NB this is /not/ true of the CD/RW drive in your computer, but applies only to standalone burners. The burners are designed to work with only certain CDRs (imprinted, I assume, with some code that allows them to be used in the burners). These CDRs, which include a royalty premium (as do the standalone burners themselves), are still sold if you look hard and are marked "for audio" in a certain place on the label.
You'll note that, by the AHRA, making a copy of a CD for your personal use on such a standalone burner with the approved CDR type, is legal (or at least not actionable, as guaranteed by the Act).
Almost no one, to my knowledge, owns a standalone CD burner anymore, though I myself still have one. Almost no one knows anything about this act, as the ill-informed responses to your OP demonstrate.
>> CDs are digital. There is no such thing as an "analog CD".
> That's what I thought. But what does this other poster mean by, "They're > talking about Audio CDs burned in standalone CD burners. > They're rigged as per the audio home recordings act."?
Perhaps he was writing about "audio" cd-rs as oppossed to "computer blank" cd-rs.
> I burn music CDs via the CD burner in my computer. Is my copy digital in > that case? Is it "the same" as the original?
Look via computer at the disk directory. Commercial CDs show each track as a file in CDA format (or something else, depending on what music software is installed on your PC. Digital files are in such formats as WAV, MP3, OGG and so on.
-- Don Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
MIFrost wrote: > According to a recent issue of "Consumer Reports" magazine, "Once you've > burned a CD, you can't make digital copies of it." "When you burn a copy of > a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And copies might not be as > high quality as originals, although the average ear won't be able to hear > the difference."
> This is the first I've ever heard of this. I thought all original and burned > copies are digital and exactly the same.
> Yes? No?
> MIFrost
There was a time that Consumer Reports was a valuable tool, but in the past few years they have gone into a tailspin IMO. I think that the world has gotten too complicated for them to keep up with. Recently there was a very long thread in rec.photo.digital about this very subject. I subscribed to CR for a good many years and bought several outstanding products based on their reviews; however.....then I got stuck with a few lemons at a cost of too much money and I no longer trust them. It's sad to see an old friend go downhill like that. Allen
John Harrington <bearti...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 4, 6:53 am, "MIFrost" <sfro...@NOSPAMnycap.rr.com> wrote: > > "Kimba W. Lion" <kimbawlion> wrote in > > messagenews:ohv8b3pdkdfr6395kbl10q5hfev0lb5mjp@4ax.com...
> > > CDs are digital. There is no such thing as an "analog CD".
> > That's what I thought. But what does this other poster mean by, "They're > > talking about Audio CDs burned in standalone CD burners. > > They're rigged as per the audio home recordings act."?
> Did you read the Audio Home Recordings Act? That would answer your > question. Google and all that. There's a nice wikipedia article. > (NB, this is an American Law: CR is an American magazine).
> If you aren't a perverse literalist, there is, in fact, such a thing > as an "analog CD". This is a CD onto which has been coded (digitally, > of course) an analog signal. That's all the CR people mean. In their > review, for legal reasons the reviewers are likely talking about CDRs > recorded in standalone CD burners. Such burners are set up such that > the first copy of a given CD is made with a digital signal. > Subsequent copies are made with an analog signal. NB this is /not/ > true of the CD/RW drive in your computer, but applies only to > standalone burners. The burners are designed to work with only > certain CDRs (imprinted, I assume, with some code that allows them to > be used in the burners). These CDRs, which include a royalty premium > (as do the standalone burners themselves), are still sold if you look > hard and are marked "for audio" in a certain place on the label.
> You'll note that, by the AHRA, making a copy of a CD for your personal > use on such a standalone burner with the approved CDR type, is legal > (or at least not actionable, as guaranteed by the Act).
> Almost no one, to my knowledge, owns a standalone CD burner anymore,
Ah, this brings to mind the awful TEAC LP to CD system that was posted here like last year or so, it didn't occur to me that "all in one LP to CD systems" would be required to abide by the Serial Copy Management System, it was assumed this was voluntary; this still wouldn't explain TEAC coming with a fifty hour needle, presumably bad quality.
> though I myself still have one. Almost no one knows anything about > this act, as the ill-informed responses to your OP demonstrate.
That scumbag RIAA, I remember news articles about RIAA demanding laws that required copy protection on cassette recorders, this is from the early 1980s (before DAT?); there's also the law forbidding rentals of sound recordings, so you can rent a music video DVD from a store, but is illegal to rent an LP, audio-cassette, presumably being extended to CDs by extension to new audio-recordings (dual disc CD/DVD? I presume it is illegal to rent those they are considered audio-recordings), the law forbidding playlists on radio (exceptions, whatever, it is designed to prevent competition from developing to the mainstream stations), etc.
Kimba W. Lion writes: > MIFrost wrote: >> According to a recent issue of "Consumer Reports" magazine, "Once you've >> burned a CD, you can't make digital copies of it." "When you burn a copy of >> a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And copies might not be as >> high quality as originals, although the average ear won't be able to hear >> the difference." > Another example of CU spouting garbage when they obviously know absolutely > nothing about the subject. (Anyone remember their laughable speaker > reviews?)
> CDs are digital. There is no such thing as an "analog CD".
> The only reason a copy won't sound the same as the original is if > something went horribly wrong in the copying process, and then there > wouldn't be the slightest doubt there was something wrong.
> Consumer Reports' articles never matched my experience. And then came the > "filth in food sells magazines" scandal. I don't know why they're still > around.
Judging from what the majority of the respondents have written in this thread, they obviously don't know as much as CU, so I find it ironic that they should criticize CU as spouting garbage.
There's something known as the Serial Copy Management System that allows a single digital copy to be made. If you try to make a digital copy of that copy, SCMS cuts in and prevents it from happening. The only way you can make a copy of that copy is to go through an analog conversion process. To be sure, that analog signal can be redigitized and written to another CD. So yes, CDs are digital, but there is such a thing as an "analog CD", in the sense that the source and copy may not be identical, bit for bit, having gone through a D --> A and A --> D process.
Computer CD writers are primarily intended for data, not audio signals, and therefore usually don't have SCMS. Meanwhile, consumer standalone audio CD writers usually do have SCMS, though "professional" grade gear may not. That is, in fact, the main difference between the Sony D-100 and M-1 DAT recorders. The consumer D-100 has SCMS, while the professional M-1 allows the user to set the SCMS code to his preference and can therefore allow an infinite number of digital copy generations.
tho...@antispam.ham wrote: > Kimba W. Lion writes:
>> MIFrost wrote:
>>> According to a recent issue of "Consumer Reports" magazine, "Once you've >>> burned a CD, you can't make digital copies of it." "When you burn a copy of >>> a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And copies might not be as >>> high quality as originals, although the average ear won't be able to hear >>> the difference."
>> Another example of CU spouting garbage when they obviously know absolutely >> nothing about the subject. (Anyone remember their laughable speaker >> reviews?)
>> CDs are digital. There is no such thing as an "analog CD".
>> The only reason a copy won't sound the same as the original is if >> something went horribly wrong in the copying process, and then there >> wouldn't be the slightest doubt there was something wrong.
>> Consumer Reports' articles never matched my experience. And then came the >> "filth in food sells magazines" scandal. I don't know why they're still >> around.
> Judging from what the majority of the respondents have written in this > thread, they obviously don't know as much as CU, so I find it ironic > that they should criticize CU as spouting garbage.
> There's something known as the Serial Copy Management System that allows > a single digital copy to be made.
You can make 1000 copies directly from the master, no? Not just one.
> If you try to make a digital copy of > that copy, SCMS cuts in and prevents it from happening. The only way you > can make a copy of that copy is to go through an analog conversion > process.
Or copy it on a computer.
> To be sure, that analog signal can be redigitized and written > to another CD. So yes, CDs are digital, but there is such a thing as an > "analog CD", in the sense that the source and copy may not be identical, > bit for bit, having gone through a D --> A and A --> D process.
> Computer CD writers are primarily intended for data, not audio signals, > and therefore usually don't have SCMS. Meanwhile, consumer standalone > audio CD writers usually do have SCMS, though "professional" grade gear > may not. That is, in fact, the main difference between the Sony D-100 > and M-1 DAT recorders. The consumer D-100 has SCMS, while the professional > M-1 allows the user to set the SCMS code to his preference and can > therefore allow an infinite number of digital copy generations.
Steve de Mena writes: >> Kimba W. Lion wrote: >>> MIFrost wrote: >>>> According to a recent issue of "Consumer Reports" magazine, "Once you've >>>> burned a CD, you can't make digital copies of it." "When you burn a copy of >>>> a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And copies might not be as >>>> high quality as originals, although the average ear won't be able to hear >>>> the difference." >>> Another example of CU spouting garbage when they obviously know absolutely >>> nothing about the subject. (Anyone remember their laughable speaker >>> reviews?)
>>> CDs are digital. There is no such thing as an "analog CD".
>>> The only reason a copy won't sound the same as the original is if >>> something went horribly wrong in the copying process, and then there >>> wouldn't be the slightest doubt there was something wrong.
>>> Consumer Reports' articles never matched my experience. And then came the >>> "filth in food sells magazines" scandal. I don't know why they're still >>> around. >> Judging from what the majority of the respondents have written in this >> thread, they obviously don't know as much as CU, so I find it ironic >> that they should criticize CU as spouting garbage.
>> There's something known as the Serial Copy Management System that allows >> a single digital copy to be made. > You can make 1000 copies directly from the master, no? Not just one.
If you have access to the original. What the industry is concerned about it not the actions of one person, the one with access to the original, but rather the actions of the many. If one person gives digital copies to just a few friends, and those friends give digital copies to a few of their friends, and those friends do likewise, you have an explosion of illegal copies, far greater in number than what the one with access to the original could manage to do himself. Of course, nowadays, people with access to the original can put something up for download on some web site, but then there is a single point failure, and it can be shut down fairly easily.
>> If you try to make a digital copy of >> that copy, SCMS cuts in and prevents it from happening. The only way you >> can make a copy of that copy is to go through an analog conversion >> process. > Or copy it on a computer.
>> To be sure, that analog signal can be redigitized and written >> to another CD. So yes, CDs are digital, but there is such a thing as an >> "analog CD", in the sense that the source and copy may not be identical, >> bit for bit, having gone through a D --> A and A --> D process.
>> Computer CD writers are primarily intended for data, not audio signals, >> and therefore usually don't have SCMS. Meanwhile, consumer standalone >> audio CD writers usually do have SCMS, though "professional" grade gear >> may not. That is, in fact, the main difference between the Sony D-100 >> and M-1 DAT recorders. The consumer D-100 has SCMS, while the professional >> M-1 allows the user to set the SCMS code to his preference and can >> therefore allow an infinite number of digital copy generations.
tho...@antispam.ham wrote: > Steve de Mena writes:
>>> Kimba W. Lion wrote:
>>>> MIFrost wrote:
>>>>> According to a recent issue of "Consumer Reports" magazine, "Once you've >>>>> burned a CD, you can't make digital copies of it." "When you burn a copy of >>>>> a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And copies might not be as >>>>> high quality as originals, although the average ear won't be able to hear >>>>> the difference."
>>>> Another example of CU spouting garbage when they obviously know absolutely >>>> nothing about the subject. (Anyone remember their laughable speaker >>>> reviews?)
>>>> CDs are digital. There is no such thing as an "analog CD".
>>>> The only reason a copy won't sound the same as the original is if >>>> something went horribly wrong in the copying process, and then there >>>> wouldn't be the slightest doubt there was something wrong.
>>>> Consumer Reports' articles never matched my experience. And then came the >>>> "filth in food sells magazines" scandal. I don't know why they're still >>>> around.
>>> Judging from what the majority of the respondents have written in this >>> thread, they obviously don't know as much as CU, so I find it ironic >>> that they should criticize CU as spouting garbage.
>>> There's something known as the Serial Copy Management System that allows >>> a single digital copy to be made.
>> You can make 1000 copies directly from the master, no? Not just one.
> If you have access to the original. What the industry is concerned about > it not the actions of one person, the one with access to the original, > but rather the actions of the many. If one person gives digital copies > to just a few friends, and those friends give digital copies to a few of > their friends, and those friends do likewise, you have an explosion of > illegal copies, far greater in number than what the one with access to > the original could manage to do himself. Of course, nowadays, people > with access to the original can put something up for download on some > web site, but then there is a single point failure, and it can be shut > down fairly easily.
>>> If you try to make a digital copy of >>> that copy, SCMS cuts in and prevents it from happening. The only way you >>> can make a copy of that copy is to go through an analog conversion >>> process.
>> Or copy it on a computer.
> Isn't that what I already said?
No. You said "The only way you can make a copy of that copy is to go through an analog conversion process."
MIFrost wrote: > This is the first I've ever heard of this. I thought all original and burned > copies are digital and exactly the same.
Every CD, whether burned or pressed, commercial or CD-R, contains errors. Every CD has built-in error-correction redundancy. Almost any CD-R with a half-decent CD writer will make CDs which fall well within agreed guidelines for minimum error rates. These are all errors which are built into the system in such a way as to be 100% reliably correctable such that a 100% bit-perfect copy of the original can be made.
In other words, the copy itself is not exactly the same, but thanks to the redundancy built into the system, when replayed it is exactly the same.
(FWIW data CD-Rs have greater redundancy than audio CDs - i.e. more space is taken up ensuring error correction can take place - which is why a completely full audio CD holds more minutes of music than a full data CD with the equivalent type WAV files.)
|
