The simple answer is because relative volume is different than peak volume. And it's the proper EQ,Compression/limiting that gives you the big sound (average level) not just cranking the l1 or l2.

Attached files

So you're saying that if I do a bit for bit extraction of a commercial CD track, then burn the resultant .wav file onto a CDR with no processing whatsoever, the CDR will be just as loud as the original CD?

You got that right. Welcome to the wonderful world of signal processing. :D

Forgive me, but do you gentlemen realize that assuming I don't know what i'm doing is insulting? I love RO because it is a place where you can ask honest questions without fear of being insulted by a disgruntled AE like at ProSoundWeb :roll: . I am no idiot. I have made careful study of many many commercial tracks with respect to peak level, RMS level, frequency distribution, and stereo distribution. I strive to match these statistics as much as I can when preparing to burn a CD. I do not claim to be a mastering engineer in any sense of the word and I greatly appreciate the talents of a good ME, but differenced in RMS and frequency distribution alone could not account for the differences in level that I am experiencing; the snares are even louder. I cannot believe that the "proper EQ, Compression/Limiting" is responsible for individual snare hits being louder on a commercial CD than on my burned CDRs. It seems to me that there is something inherently quieter about a CDR than a commercial CD. In fact, I have a vague memory of a discussion right here at RO some time ago about burning CDs without the "-3dB drop". I searched for it, but couldn't find it. I believe Bill Roberts was involved in the discussion. Perhaps he could shed some light on the situation?

If you were referring to my post, forgive me. No slight was intended. In fact, if you got down and dirty with the facts, I probably can claim the title of "Member with absolute least hands-on experience" on RO.

What I DO know is - the fact is, CDs are all digital - that is, 1's and 0's. The information is interpreted by the player the instant it's played, and is not when the CD-R is burned. This means that if the CD player's D/A was fed with the exact same bits from the reading lens, be it a commercial silverback CD or a cheap USD0.20 CDR in the tray, the volume will be the same.

Try a simple test - I don't claim to have done it, but I would be very surprised if the results aren't what I hope they would be.
Get a commercial CD, rip a track out with a reliable ripping program like EAC to make sure that you get a bit-for-bit copy of the CD (brief tutorial found [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.gamingfo…"]here[/]="http://www.gamingfo…"]here[/]), then burn the resulting .wav file.

Play the two CDs one after another, or better yet, get someone to do a blind A/B with... The volumes SHOULD be the same. (though after reading your post, I'm not 100% sure anymore)

P.S. I think I need to write this because my post sounded a little too lordy for my own liking. I'm not trying to "command" anyone to try out the test, like I already knew the answers. I really want to know the results, and I can't currently perform this test on my own because I am stuck with a laptop and rock-bottom monitoring systems for the forseeable future. If my assumptions about the volume were false, I REALLY want to know!

Again, no slight was intended.

im however not as nice cheap burners = lower sound get a decent burner made for audio should be like an extra 100 bucks at most then rip an entire cd and load the thing through a true stero pre so you know the levels are the same rec the cd 2 wav your riped version of one song and the commercial cd if there is any diffrence in volume ill eat my mic cord

Originally posted by David French:
I cannot believe that the "proper EQ, Compression/Limiting" is responsible for individual snare hits being louder on a commercial CD than on my burned CDRs.

Joe Lambert said; The simple answer is because relative volume is different than peak volume. And it's the proper EQ,Compression/limiting that gives you the big sound (average level) not just cranking the l1 or l2.

:) Hi David! Let's use a snare hit as an example of what Joe said. In mixing, the snare hit is very fast, so fast that it's peak may not even show up on a VU meter by the time it is over. What would the average level of that snare be? I know you have been through all this, and understand it.

If we used that hot snare as the absolute maximum point we can go, will there be room for all the other instruments to blend?

Even if the snare is reduced in level into the mix, will it have the same desired impact?

You say snare hits are louder on a commercially produced CD. How are you getting your instrument and vocal music levels up there in average to work effectively with the snare?

If you limit the snare, it doesn't sound like a snare anymore, and if you attempt to get a hot snare sound in a mix, and go to compress and limit that mix, the snare is going to control all your dynamics, and defeat your attempt at average loudness.
IMHO it has nothing to do with burning except, some stand alone recorders might offer a bit of protection in the metering.

Any help?

--Rick

Originally posted by doulos21:
im however not as nice cheap burners = lower sound get a decent burner made for audio should be like an extra 100 bucks at most then rip an entire cd and load the thing through a true stero pre so you know the levels are the same rec the cd 2 wav your riped version of one song and the commercial cd if there is any diffrence in volume ill eat my mic cord

Take a deep breath! No, really!
What exactly do you mean by cheap burners giving "lower sound"? Lower volume? Lower quality?

Greetings All,

Perhaps my take on this subject will shed some light toward someplace where you might find some answers to the baffling question of "Why don't my CDs sound as loud as the commercially released ones?". The first thing you should take into account overall is the mix. How similiar is the material that you are attempting to capture for the entire world to hear to the material that you are comparing it to? You may noitice that many comercial CDs also lack low end or bass in the mix, while others have tons of it. If your mix is bass heavy when compared to the commercial CD, you are going to have to do a lot of work to get the same slamming volume levels. It can be done if you are willing to take a few extra steps in the process. If limiters seem to be squashing your sound into something no longer recognizable to your original concept, try mixing some of the unaffected track in with it. Don't take it all the way. Do some mastering compression on your 2 Mix Bus. Then in the Mastering Program (I assume all you guys are working in the Digital Domain, right?) use a Multiband Compressor, which breaks the sound up into different frequency bands and compresses each one differently. When dialed in properly, a Multiband Compressor can make the sound literally leap out of the speakers without adding any EQ. However, be careful to apply it properly so it suits the style and mood of the track you are working on. You wouldn't treat a Ballad in the same way you would treat a Disco song. You wouldn't serve up Salsa the same way you would present Rock. Remember, don't overcook it. Only do what you need.
Still not loud enough? Bring the file from the Mastering Program back into the Editing program and try some more Limiting and Compression/Mastering Compression there. You will find by comparision that you are getting closer and closer in volume and yet still maintain the integrity of your original mix, if you do it this way, in small steps.
On another note, some mention of burners and CD Writers should be discussed. There are so many different ones out there coupled with so many different programs and they all have their assets and liabilites. I won't mention specifics, but suffice to say that there are differences and you may have to experiment for a while before you hit upon the right combination that best suits your needs. You will also find that differnt writing speeds will give you different results. A stand alone audio CD burner may give you product that has more depth to the sound that the burner in your PC. I personally don't take much stock in the quality of sound that comes from using the burner mounted in your average run of the mill pedestrian PC. I have yet to hear a disc which came out of a PC that didn't sound like crap. Harsh words, yes, but I can only speak for myself. Take it as one man's opinion.
As far as your DAWs are concerned, don't always flip on that "Auto Mastering" switch. It may give you the volume you are seeking, yet totally destroy your ability to understand the lyrics.
Finally keep in mind that commercial CDs are mastered with equipment which is the finest of the fine. There are brick wall limiters out there that will knock your socks off, but let's face it, these toys are not cheap and usually out of the realm of the home recordist's budget. You get what you pay for folks, and you will not get that big sound without spending some big bucks.
In the meanwhile, keep trying.

David, PM me, I will give you my email and the answers.

Originally posted by horowizard:
On another note, some mention of burners and CD Writers should be discussed. There are so many different ones out there coupled with so many different programs and they all have their assets and liabilites. I won't mention specifics, but suffice to say that there are differences and you may have to experiment for a while before you hit upon the right combination that best suits your needs. You will also find that differnt writing speeds will give you different results. A stand alone audio CD burner may give you product that has more depth to the sound that the burner in your PC. I personally don't take much stock in the quality of sound that comes from using the burner mounted in your average run of the mill pedestrian PC. I have yet to hear a disc which came out of a PC that didn't sound like crap. Harsh words, yes, but I can only speak for myself. Take it as one man's opinion.

This has been what's been baffling me for quite some time. Other than the jitter effect causing some bits to be misread during playback by the CD player on bad burns, how can a set of 1's and 0's burned onto one surface sound different from an identical copy on a different surface?

Could anyone shed some light on this?

David,

> Could someone please explain why a CDR that I burn on my PC, even with heavy limiting, always sounds a few dB quieter than a commercial release? <

I'm surprised nobody mentioned the best method of all for maximizing volume - using a program like PeakSlammer. Unlike limiting, which uses attack and release time constants and always adds a sound of its own, PeakSlammer and programs like it act on single cycles only. So you don't have to add an obnoxious amount of compression to increase the levels. Here's a link to the page that describes PeakSlammer:

http://www.scrollworks.com/products/slammer/

The key is it reduces the volume of any single cycle that exceeds a threshold you define. But it does so without clipping, so you can get a healthy increase in perceived level with no side effects. I typically go for 4 dB. of reduction, but you can go even higher than that before it starts to sound affected.

--Ethan

Falcon,

> how can a set of 1's and 0's burned onto one surface sound different from an identical copy on a different surface? <

You are absolutely correct, and even the effect of jitter is grossly overstated. Bits is bits, and nobody can tell the difference between one error-free CD and another in a blind test. I'm not saying all CD players or D/A converters are the same. But the raw data on the CDs surely is.

--Ethan

Let me start by saying what a pleasure it is to have finally created a hot thread! From past experience, I was beginning to believe that I was a thread killer!

falkon2,

First, it's all good, bro. :(

Rick Hammang,

I think you are basically agreeing with Mr. Lambert, but you managed to do so in a respectful way, which I appreciate. What you said, however, seems a bit zen-like to me. It seems to me that all you did was present a kind of paradox. Maybe I just don't get it. :confused:

horowizard,

The material I am putting onto CD is quite similar to the material I am comparing it to. This is how I learn; I find a precedent for every track I do and try to match it as close as possible. I have a voracious appetite for learning audio and I am in the immitative stage of my education. I spend a great deal of time studying and emulating professional work.

Ethan Winer,

Is PeakSlammer truly inherently better than plugins like Waves L2, TCNative L, and Sony Oxford Inflator? And on the point of the different sounds from different CDs, I have always seen it your way as well, as logic would dictate, yet I have heard guys arguing over which CDR 'sounds' better! Quite strange.

So gentlemen, let's keep going until we get to the bottom of this :c:

Um, huh? If your burner's a piece of crap, then maybe you'll get skips and errors, but any volume difference is *not* going to be attributable to the CDR itself. If you load the tracks from a CD into a burning program, and burn them on a CDR, and then play the CDR in any CD player (that it works in- there are CD players that won't play CDR's well, but that doesn't have any bearing here), any volume difference you hear can only be due to a) your ripping/extracting hardware/software is fucked up, b) your burning software is fucked up, or (remotely) c) your playback hardware is fucked up in a really interesting way.

AFA the 'true stereo pre' goes, I'm not sure what you mean. If you go out analog, go through some sort of pre, and then rerecord, you've invalidated the whole test- your levels could be anywhere.

The point is, cheap burner or not, if you burn a data identical CDR and it actually plays in your player, you should not hear any volume difference. Slight tonal differences may be possible, but I think the jury's still out on that one. It's certainly never been proven, and it certainly won't be major.

Originally posted by doulos21:
im however not as nice cheap burners = lower sound get a decent burner made for audio should be like an extra 100 bucks at most then rip an entire cd and load the thing through a true stero pre so you know the levels are the same rec the cd 2 wav your riped version of one song and the commercial cd if there is any diffrence in volume ill eat my mic cord

I really don't mean to be disrespectful, but I ain't buyin' it. This kind of statement bothers me, as it comes up so often, and there's very little base for it.

If you burn a CDR on a half dozen different players, you will definitely end up with differing error rates.

Your playback mechanism will either be able to correct them, or it will skip and pop.

Nobody has ever, to my knowledge, done a successful double blind test that shows that anyone can tell the difference between data-identical disks, although there is *some* anecdotal evidence of slight differences.

Originally posted by horowizard:
Greetings All,
A stand alone audio CD burner may give you product that has more depth to the sound that the burner in your PC. I personally don't take much stock in the quality of sound that comes from using the burner mounted in your average run of the mill pedestrian PC.

Well, I emailed Terry G, and this is what he had to say:

Easy answers. Some CDR's have a default code built into them to keep them from going past -2 actual dB. It is a driver issue. To get professional volume on a CD recorder, you either have to have one of the older plextor units (12/10/32 is a killer, or you have to have someone to write the code to go past the digital zero (which I can easily do without clipping, hence professional set-up) or simply have a standalone CDR that does not limit a zero.

The standards were changed 3 years ago (notice this is when all the bitching started) and it is quite secret as well to keep top mastering houses "exclusive" and "in business".

Sorry to burst a bubble but yes, it is the little black box thingy at work. If you weant to make the big dough, you got to play the game that the "chosen ones" were given.

Actually, creative labs was forced to go from the plextor to the jvc because of consumerism.

They simply don't want joe 6 pack hjaving the same technology as the cats making 12 grand a day doing crappy work.

A very interesting new dimension to the debate.

What do you all think of this?

At this point, I thought it might be appropriate to bring up the wise words of Benjamin Franklin - "If you argue and rankle and contradict, you may achieve a victory sometimes; but it will be an empty victory because you will never get your opponent's good will". Although I have no authority here whatsoever, I would like to urge everyone to keep a cool head and to be respectful of eachother at all times. I remember several threads, recently a certain thread about the HR824s, that have really gotten out of hand because everyone has such strong beliefs. But aren't we after the truth, not to prove ourselves right? Please, be cool. :cool:

Now THAT is an interesting turn of events.

With this new info in mind, I did a simple test - I'm not too sure if I can draw these conclusions from it, but here goes anyway.

A good way to test if two tracks are identical is to load them up side by side in a multitrack/DAW and invert phase on one. If they're identical, the result of playback will be silence. (if f(x) - g(x) = 0, f(x) = g(x))

With that in mind, I performed a couple of burns/rerips and rip/reburn/rerips, and tested the end results against the originals.

I generated white noise, normalized and compressed it till the level analyzers said -5dBRMS, then I burnt it and reripped. When loaded up into Cakewalk side by side, silence.

I generated a normalized square wave, and the dB meters gave positive values (since rms is based on a normalized sine wave). I burnt, reripped, compared. Silence.

I ripped a couple of commercial CDs with decent rms levels (-10.5 and -8 respectively). Reburnt, reripped, compared. Silence.

It is totally possible in the third case (with the commercial CDs) that the ripping process was somehow influenced by the -2dB limit as well, and thus the first .wav that ended up on my hard drive was already crippled before being reburned and reripped. If that were true, then both .wavs would be identical, no question, and yet the -2dB limit could still be there.

However, the first two tests yielded silence as well... which means after burning and reripping, the copy was identical. Now, if we think about this carefully, the reverse process might also be true. Could CD drives somehow gain back -2dB from CD-Rs burnt with that limit? That would imply that the data itself was unchanged, but there's a limit that goes into play during playback, rather than when the CD-R is burnt.

Or it could simply be that the limit is an unfounded rumor.

Discussion?

........

Originally posted by Brad Blackwood:
It's a crock of crap.
Burn anything you wish then extract it and check for yourself.

:) Hi Again David! Do you have a link to a piece of music, or perhaps something to upload on the Critique Forum?

--Rick

I don't belive it. The burning software is what's controlling the burn in the first place- you're telling me that if I limit something to -.2 in Wavelab, and render the file before the burn, the *burner's driver* is going to change my data? Nah. This is wrong and unworkable on so many levels...

Getting 'professional volume' has something to do with processing gear, and mostly to do with the quality of work from arrangement to final QC.

Originally posted by David French:
Well, I emailed Terry G, and this is what he had to say:

Easy answers. Some CDR's have a default code built into them to keep them from going past -2 actual dB. It is a driver issue. To get professional volume on a CD recorder, you either have to have one of the older plextor units (12/10/32 is a killer, or you have to have someone to write the code to go past the digital zero (which I can easily do without clipping, hence professional set-up) or simply have a standalone CDR that does not limit a zero.
.

David,

> Is PeakSlammer truly inherently better than plugins like Waves L2, TCNative L, and Sony Oxford Inflator? <

It is very different from a compressor, so you can't compare them directly. I assume the goal is to take a track that already sounds exactly as you'd like, and make it louder. If you run it through a compressor, the sound will be changed because of the action of the compressor. If you run it through PeakSlammer with modest settings - let's say 4-6 dB. reduction followed by the same amount of make-up gain - you will have achieved that much increase in real volume with no change to the sound except in those places where the level was reduced. And even then the change in sound is either inaudible or insignificant.

--Ethan

Brad,

> It's a crock of crap. <

No fooling.

It amazes me how much nonsense floats around as fact - especially stuff like this that's so easy to prove!

--Ethan

David,
Sorry to give a short answer and dissapear on you. I gave a quick look at some of the comments. The level you get has nothing to do with the burner you are using. It has everything to do with the way the song is mixed and mastered. When I get a mix one of the things I listen to is how it sounds dynamicaly - does it hold together well. if not I will use compression accordingly. The way I get the big loud sound is the relationship between the proper EQ and compression. I know this is hard for me to explain. Yes you can turn up the L1 until it is flipping loud but it probably wont sound good. This is because it's not meant to change the relative volume. It's meant to work as a limiter in that it clips (compresses) just the peaks. This is fine for a db or 2 more leval but if the song does not have the proper relative volume it wont be enough. Try a stereo compressor if you haven't already. Maybe someone already put this up but I didn't read them all word for word. I hope this is helpful

Originally posted by Ethan Winer:
David,
It is very different from a compressor, so you can't compare them directly. I assume the goal is to take a track that already sounds exactly as you'd like, and make it louder. If you run it through a compressor, the sound will be changed because of the action of the compressor. If you run it through PeakSlammer with modest settings - let's say 4-6 dB. reduction followed by the same amount of make-up gain - you will have achieved that much increase in real volume with no change to the sound except in those places where the level was reduced. And even then the change in sound is either inaudible or insignificant.

--Ethan

I looked at the site. The sheer simplicity of how it works is nothing short of stunning! I wonder why people didn't think this up the moment digital came into play. Why hard-limit when you can do this? :D

OK - i don't know a whole lot about the issue - although i do know about the effect.... i have the same "problem" (although i don't consider it a problem - i actually want my product to be 2 or 3 db low in volume - from what i understand this is the state most of the mastering techs want it in to work with - i'll let them raise the levels to industry standards)

But - the industry standards - based on my investigations on the web - vary based on music genre - thus take a classical music piece - along with a heavy metal piece (both manufactured today)- play them back to back - and the metal piece is going to be louder.

Also this appears to be true for music recorded today vrs music recorded in say the 60's or 70's.

If this is truly the case - then the real questions are (in my mind anyway)

A. What are the industry standards for DB in the genre i am interested in

(and/or)

B: How do i measure the process in order to maintain the standards.

I do know from experience that normalizing is not necessarily the answer. I have normalized some entire pieces i've mixed - and have found that i do not like the final effect

I therefor view normalization as a process to be used to raise a certain section of a track that for what ever reason was recorded at a lower volume - but when i am complete with the mix - i really hope i have already solved those problems.

(If i am wrong on this - i would encourage the pro's to striaghten me out - i am after all here to learn not teach)

I have more than a lot to learn here - and thank god that here is available to learn it at - but i have tried (and had some good success) with taking my final mix.... bouncing it to my stereo mix- and then boosting that signal and bouncing again for my final. This has worked without creating any problems on the final product.

I would however ask the question - what establishes the industry standard for "loudness" on a recording of a particular genre of music?

Happy hunting -

Rod

A related question to the mastering engineers:

Is there any benefit from today's "commercial levels" other than to satisfy the "louder is better" image? I mean... I've heard CD's so badly distorted by pumping the limiters to the maximum that I can't imagine the band wanted the end result to sound that way. Alkaline Trio's "We've Had Enough" from their latest album reads -5dB average rms, which is IMHO just retarded. I really hope that things aren't going to get louder and louder and go downhill from there.

No slight intended, of course. Just curious.

Out of 6 of 9 CDRW recorders I have used in the consumer realum, not pro, their was a definite Drop in DB level of 2dB from the RMS based on the wave file. Brad, this is unrefutable. If you have more than 17 CDRW units in your "grande facility of beyond par", you would have seen this occur. If not, take the word that their are software issues with certain burning software and certain cdrw players.

You do not have to believe.

It simply happens and with the huge number of people and situations, this is certainly possable with many "home situations pretending to be mastering facilities"

I have made a concentrated study of it.

Very documented..of course, the imformation is on a consultant basis for hire, as I do not give it out for free...and shouldn't

I worked obtaining it, compensation will be due.

But the nero VS XXX drives WITHOUT SOFTWARE COMPATABILITY and the Standalones delivering is unrefutable. Nero has had over 70 software and driver upgrades over the last 4 years. Pros do NOT use these downloaded programs. We use the real gear to digital transfer.

Some pros are beta testers and find fault with burning software writing and code. We also see when the code is purposly CHANGED.

If you beta test and see this, you qualify for the knowledge, which obviously is oblivious to you based on your statement.

Watch what you talk about if you do not have the experience with it or the information.

It makes you look like an computer man that got lucky and got some gigs.

Take a day off to test and calibrate your equipment and get to know your clients equipment and perhaps, you may gain a better understanding. I have lived in 6 decades. I am not BSting anyone here. Look at your stance as gerneralized..not educated.

To readers and listeners.

Go forward but don't discount the findings unless you have seen the varables that exisit...and mind you, their can be hundreds.

Wholesale bashing is neither honorable or proven.

Since the topic came up, this alone is unrefutable proof that this problem is out there, educate yourselfs and keep an open mind, like other greats have had over the centurys...or we simply live on a flat Earth.

I cannot believe again that "pros" have to say "BS" to something that is not only known but proven. Go ahead, make your money and fuck our art...it gets deeper folks..Political at best.

Just read the thread..it flows Eh??

Don't listen to Politics, listen to the truth...which David French has observed.

Valad questions, unrefutable answers.

Geeezee you folks need to be scientists, not paper chasers.

....

Originally posted by Terry G: a.k.a; Bill Roberts.

Geeezee you folks need to be scientists, not paper chasers.

Realum, Not a word. What does it mean in "Billspeak"?
unrefutable, once again, not a real word.
possible, misspelled
imformation, misspelled
COMPATABILITY, misspelled
unrefutable, once again, not a real word.
purposly, misspelled
gerneralized, misspelled or once again, not a real word.

Now I know it isn't usually Kosher to call to the attention of the group to misspellings but this is from a person who is claiming to be a scientist. ???? :confused: ????
This is an old fashioned technique called, "Dazzle them with Bullsh*t". Old as the hills. I for one am not impressed with the "word salad ramblings" of someone who can't even get the spellchecker on his computer to work.

Originally posted by Terry G:

varable misspelled
Valad misspelled

Other than the jitter effect causing some bits to be misread during playback by the CD player on bad burns, how can a set of 1's and 0's burned onto one surface sound different from an identical copy on a different surface?

Could anyone shed some light on this? [/QB]

Although I realize that this is straying way from the topic of volume or relative volume, I offer the following:

If you are getting bad burns, you have got a considerably different problem on your hands which may or may not be related to jitter.
Jitter itself, while not affecting volume is most assuredly and seriously compromising the integrity of those bits, and in a big way. Jitter is induced by impure power sources and inconsistancies that lie within your converter/clocks. On firsthand listening, your audio may appear to be fine and yet there is something about it that bugs you. Why does it not sound quite so good?? For more detailed info on this go to: http://www.jitter.de/english/engc_navfr.html

Originally posted by Terry G:
varable
Valad

Kurt, you missed two. :D

Terry, I don't think I'll be paying money for anything other then education for the next year or so, so maybe I'm not privy to all your research documents, but can you PLEASE explain what I did wrong in my rip-burn-rerip test? Because according to those tests, I concluded that after burning with my consumer-grade CDR drive and a cheap USD0.20 CDR, there wasn't any change in the bits. Please... just tell me what I did wrong and I'll be a very happy man.

Horowizard: WOW! Now MANY things start to make sense. Thanks for the link... very informative.

I've been using the term "jitter" in the wrong context all this time. This phenomena of different clock timing explains quite a bit.

The results are in.

Well, at least from my perspective.

I took a run of the mill loud-ass CD, extracted a couple tracks with Exact Audio Copy, and burned them to a CDR with CD Architect 5.0 and an LG CD burner. I then borrowed my girfriend's ears for a blind AB test. "Which is louder?", I asked. "They're the same.", was the answer given. Tough to admit, but I agreed with her 100%. We tried two volumes, very soft and very loud, and they both were quite equal. I suppose I am the one that owes Mr. Lambert an apology. He was right; I really don't know what i'm doing. :c:

And I have a feeling it's not over...

....

David,
Mr. Lambert.. I haven't been called that since I was at the doctors office! Call me Joe. Anyway no need to apologize. The goal here is to help, and that's why I'm here. I don't know what Mr. "Scientist" is all worked up about.

The thing with CD's is you get back what you put in. Unlike vinyl where you had physical limitations. The down side of this is there is no true "reference" If you turn up your limiter so everything is slammed, no dynamics, distortion among other things the CD will burn and will play. Yes it probably will suck but that's part of the experience of making CD's without taking into consideration all the things we talk about everyday on this site.

If you have questions ask me. If you want to talk about Science..

Attached files

Originally posted by Terry G:
Out of 6 of 9 CDRW recorders I have used in the consumer realum, not pro, their was a definite Drop in DB level of 2dB from the RMS based on the wave file. Brad, this is unrefutable. If you have more than 17 CDRW units in your "grande facility of beyond par", you would have seen this occur. If not, take the word that their are software issues with certain burning software and certain cdrw players.

You do not have to believe.

It simply happens and with the huge number of people and situations, this is certainly possable with many "home situations pretending to be mastering facilities"

I have made a concentrated study of it.

Very documented..of course, the imformation is on a consultant basis for hire, as I do not give it out for free...and shouldn't

I worked obtaining it, compensation will be due.

But the nero VS XXX drives WITHOUT SOFTWARE COMPATABILITY and the Standalones delivering is unrefutable. Nero has had over 70 software and driver upgrades over the last 4 years. Pros do NOT use these downloaded programs. We use the real gear to digital transfer.

Some pros are beta testers and find fault with burning software writing and code. We also see when the code is purposly CHANGED.

If you beta test and see this, you qualify for the knowledge, which obviously is oblivious to you based on your statement.

Watch what you talk about if you do not have the experience with it or the information.

It makes you look like an computer man that got lucky and got some gigs.

Take a day off to test and calibrate your equipment and get to know your clients equipment and perhaps, you may gain a better understanding. I have lived in 6 decades. I am not BSting anyone here. Look at your stance as gerneralized..not educated.

To readers and listeners.

Go forward but don't discount the findings unless you have seen the varables that exisit...and mind you, their can be hundreds.

Wholesale bashing is neither honorable or proven.

Since the topic came up, this alone is unrefutable proof that this problem is out there, educate yourselfs and keep an open mind, like other greats have had over the centurys...or we simply live on a flat Earth.

I cannot believe again that "pros" have to say "BS" to something that is not only known but proven. Go ahead, make your money and fuck our art...it gets deeper folks..Political at best.

Just read the thread..it flows Eh??

Don't listen to Politics, listen to the truth...which David French has observed.

Valad questions, unrefutable answers.

Geeezee you folks need to be scientists, not paper chasers.

OK

--Rick

Interesting. Certainly not true with

Nero (most recent)
Wavelab
Easy CD Creator
Goldenhawk thingy
A couple of cheap Mac programs

and

Yamaha 8x8x24
Recent Lite-On
HP 9200
HP8100
Plextor 12/8/32

all with most recent drivers.

You're saying it's a drop in *RMS?* Not peak? So something's actually expanding?

If anyone has a combo that does give you a drop in level, yo shit is broke. Send it back.

Originally posted by Terry G:
Out of 6 of 9 CDRW recorders I have used in the consumer realum, not pro, their was a definite Drop in DB level of 2dB from the RMS based on the wave file.

Attached files