Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Golitely
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

When recording on cassette tapes was still the main way for us home
audio enthusiasts (of limited budget) to record music, and CDs were
just beginning to replace the old LP, I took a cue from a friend and
made the switch to using a hi-fi video recorder. I used it to record
favorite albums, 'party tapes' and my own semi-musical meanderings,
(still kept a cassette recorder/player for some things). The reason
for doing this was of course the higher quality, audio-wise, of hi-fi
video compared to cassette tapes. Now it's a generation later and I'm
wondering if I shouldn't take the same approach with digital
recording.

With the price of stand-alone DVD recorders coming down to reasonable
levels do you think it would be a good idea to buy a DVD recorder for
my home audio system, (using it, in part, to preserve old analog
recordings), and just skip buying a CD recorder altogether? (I've got
a burner for my pc, but that's all.) What would be the pluses and
minuses of doing this? Thanks for any comments.
  #2   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

"Gareth Hardy" wrote in
message
With the price of stand-alone DVD recorders coming down to reasonable
levels do you think it would be a good idea to buy a DVD recorder for
my home audio system, (using it, in part, to preserve old analog
recordings), and just skip buying a CD recorder altogether? (I've got
a burner for my pc, but that's all.) What would be the pluses and
minuses of doing this? Thanks for any comments.


Ever hear of using computers for audio?

It works!

Advantages of CDR:
Portability - you can use them in your car, at your mates etc
Price - CDR can be obtained for about 20% the price of a DVD-R
Readiness - Sounds like you already have the kit you need.


Advantages of DVDR:


Higher resolution - up to 96KHz compared to 44.1KHz for CD audio)


No audible benefits.

More space - A CDR has just 16% the capacity of a DVDR


Good point, but in fact most practical CD-R's are full of empty space, as
actually used.

More compression options - Dolby, MPEG1 and 2, and (of course)
uncompressed.


Right

Disadvantages of DVD-R:

(1) DVD-R drives are at least 3-4x more expensive than CD-R drives.

(2) Recording software to actually exploit the hardware capabilities of the
DVD can be relatively expensive. We're talking $100's versus free.

(3) DVD-Rs are relatively slow recorders of CD-Rs.



  #3   Report Post  
FDR
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Gareth Hardy" wrote in
message
With the price of stand-alone DVD recorders coming down to reasonable
levels do you think it would be a good idea to buy a DVD recorder for
my home audio system, (using it, in part, to preserve old analog
recordings), and just skip buying a CD recorder altogether? (I've got
a burner for my pc, but that's all.) What would be the pluses and
minuses of doing this? Thanks for any comments.


Ever hear of using computers for audio?

It works!

Advantages of CDR:
Portability - you can use them in your car, at your mates etc
Price - CDR can be obtained for about 20% the price of a DVD-R
Readiness - Sounds like you already have the kit you need.


Advantages of DVDR:


Higher resolution - up to 96KHz compared to 44.1KHz for CD audio)


No audible benefits.


CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies because
of the fewer sampling points there. Higher sampling rates lessen the
effects.


  #4   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

"FDR" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Gareth Hardy" wrote in
message
With the price of stand-alone DVD recorders coming down to
reasonable levels do you think it would be a good idea to buy a
DVD recorder for my home audio system, (using it, in part, to
preserve old analog recordings), and just skip buying a CD
recorder altogether? (I've got a burner for my pc, but that's
all.) What would be the pluses and minuses of doing this? Thanks
for any comments.


Ever hear of using computers for audio?

It works!

Advantages of CDR:
Portability - you can use them in your car, at your mates etc
Price - CDR can be obtained for about 20% the price of a DVD-R
Readiness - Sounds like you already have the kit you need.


Advantages of DVDR:


Higher resolution - up to 96KHz compared to 44.1KHz for CD audio)


No audible benefits.


CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies
because of the fewer sampling points there.


Irrelevant and wrong.

There are no tricks, just proven technology.

As long as there are slightly more than two sampling points, the
reconstruction of amplitude and phase is near-perfect.

Furthermore in CD audio, that happens at or above 22.05 KHz, which is way
more than people can hear the absence of in a musical/voice context.

AFAIK there are no bias-controlled, level-matched, time-synchronized
listening tests that show otherwise, and doing such tests is nearly trivial
in this day and age.

Higher sampling rates lessen the effects.


AFAIK there are no bias-controlled, level-matched, time-synchronized
listening tests that show that either, and doing such tests is again nearly
trivial in this day and age.

If you need to hear for yourself, take your 24/96 sound card over to
www.pcabx.com and take a listen.


  #5   Report Post  
Gareth Hardy
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

Higher resolution - up to 96KHz compared to 44.1KHz for CD audio)

No audible benefits.


CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies
because of the fewer sampling points there.


Irrelevant and wrong.


I'm not an audio expert, but I thought that having a higher sampling rate is
not primarily to benefit the high frequency waveforms. It creates a smoother
waveform at lower frequencies so polyphonics sound clearer.

As well as being no expert, chances are I wouldn't notice the difference
between 44.1KHz audio and 96KHz anyway.






  #6   Report Post  
David
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

"Gareth Hardy" wrote in message ...
With the price of stand-alone DVD recorders coming down to reasonable
levels do you think it would be a good idea to buy a DVD recorder for
my home audio system, (using it, in part, to preserve old analog
recordings), and just skip buying a CD recorder altogether? (I've got
a burner for my pc, but that's all.) What would be the pluses and
minuses of doing this? Thanks for any comments.


Advantages of CDR:
Portability - you can use them in your car, at your mates etc
Price - CDR can be obtained for about 20% the price of a DVD-R
Readiness - Sounds like you already have the kit you need.

Advantages of DVDR:
Higher resolution - up to 96KHz compared to 44.1KHz for CD audio)
More space - A CDR has just 16% the capacity of a DVDR
More compression options - Dolby, MPEG1 and 2, and (of course) uncompressed.


A dvdr is the same as 7 cdr and you can get a good dvdr disc for less
than £1.00 now.

25 dvd-r for less than £20(remember thats the same as 175 cdr discs).

David
  #7   Report Post  
FDR
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"FDR" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Gareth Hardy" wrote in
message
With the price of stand-alone DVD recorders coming down to
reasonable levels do you think it would be a good idea to buy a
DVD recorder for my home audio system, (using it, in part, to
preserve old analog recordings), and just skip buying a CD
recorder altogether? (I've got a burner for my pc, but that's
all.) What would be the pluses and minuses of doing this? Thanks
for any comments.

Ever hear of using computers for audio?

It works!

Advantages of CDR:
Portability - you can use them in your car, at your mates etc
Price - CDR can be obtained for about 20% the price of a DVD-R
Readiness - Sounds like you already have the kit you need.

Advantages of DVDR:

Higher resolution - up to 96KHz compared to 44.1KHz for CD audio)

No audible benefits.


CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies
because of the fewer sampling points there.


Irrelevant and wrong.

There are no tricks, just proven technology.


Nyquist states that 2f is the sampling rate. Tell me what you get when any
sine wavel looks like when it's sampled at twice it's frequency. The actual
reconstruction can be that of a triangle, sawtooth or flatline depending on
the time it was sampled.

Fact is that there are fewer data points at the high end. You cna never
retrieve data that's not there. Yes, there are algorithms to shape the
signal and try to reconstruct it to the original but it's just harder and
less accurate.

Sampling somethin at 8x vs. 2x will always be preferred.



As long as there are slightly more than two sampling points, the
reconstruction of amplitude and phase is near-perfect.


How near perfect? Won't it be more near perfect with more data points?

This reminds me of the figure of the face on the Mars. Then when they got
higher resolution pictures you could easily tell that it wasn't a face.


Furthermore in CD audio, that happens at or above 22.05 KHz, which is way
more than people can hear the absence of in a musical/voice context.


CD players use steep filters to reject anything above 20khz so it doesn't
matter.


AFAIK there are no bias-controlled, level-matched, time-synchronized
listening tests that show otherwise, and doing such tests is nearly

trivial
in this day and age.


Maybe, but I know that high end frequencies on a CD sound harsh to my ears.


Higher sampling rates lessen the effects.


AFAIK there are no bias-controlled, level-matched, time-synchronized
listening tests that show that either, and doing such tests is again

nearly
trivial in this day and age.

If you need to hear for yourself, take your 24/96 sound card over to
www.pcabx.com and take a listen.




  #8   Report Post  
Sasa [Sason] Miocic
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies
because of the fewer sampling points there.


Irrelevant and wrong.

There are no tricks, just proven technology.


What technology? Assigning voltage to a time point?

As long as there are slightly more than two sampling points, the
reconstruction of amplitude and phase is near-perfect.


Yes, near perfect, or maybe harsh? Tell me how are you gonna discribe sine
wave with 2 sample points? You can't, it is gonna be a triangle wave. So
higher the freqs on CD, sharper they become. Thats why more sample points
are needed in high-end audio. And if you have good speakers, you can really,
maybe not actually hear the difference, but feel the difference between
44.1kHz and 96kHz sampling rate. I would discribe it as a more open,
brilliant, sparkling, fresh full airy sound. You can laugh but it's true

Furthermore in CD audio, that happens at or above 22.05 KHz, which is way
more than people can hear the absence of in a musical/voice context.


True that we cannot "hear" above 22k or below 20Hz. But have you ever "felt"
15Hz? Psicho acoustics are playing with that kind of problems.


  #9   Report Post  
dgk
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

On 25 Jun 2003 01:41:20 -0700, (Golitely) wrote:

When recording on cassette tapes was still the main way for us home
audio enthusiasts (of limited budget) to record music, and CDs were
just beginning to replace the old LP, I took a cue from a friend and
made the switch to using a hi-fi video recorder. I used it to record
favorite albums, 'party tapes' and my own semi-musical meanderings,
(still kept a cassette recorder/player for some things). The reason
for doing this was of course the higher quality, audio-wise, of hi-fi
video compared to cassette tapes. Now it's a generation later and I'm
wondering if I shouldn't take the same approach with digital
recording.

With the price of stand-alone DVD recorders coming down to reasonable
levels do you think it would be a good idea to buy a DVD recorder for
my home audio system, (using it, in part, to preserve old analog
recordings), and just skip buying a CD recorder altogether? (I've got
a burner for my pc, but that's all.) What would be the pluses and
minuses of doing this? Thanks for any comments.


Computer CD burners are pushing 52X. DVD burners have been stuck at
4X. This may or may not be important to you. I've been holding off on
DVD because I burn a lot of stuff (mostly live concerts) and when I
get the chance to burn some stuff that is accumulating on the hard
drive I want to burn it fast.

I'm not sure of the speed of standalone CD burners, since I can't
conceive of using one rather than a PC one that costs 1/4 as much and
does more. However it has to be much faster than DVD.
  #10   Report Post  
David
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.


Disadvantages of DVD-R:

(1) DVD-R drives are at least 3-4x more expensive than CD-R drives.


A DVD-RW drive can be brought for less than £100 now which is only £50
more than the highest spec CD-RW drive.

(2) Recording software to actually exploit the hardware capabilities of the
DVD can be relatively expensive. We're talking $100's versus free.


Only about £30 for ulead dvd moviefactory or something silimar.


(3) DVD-Rs are relatively slow recorders of CD-Rs.


DVD-R writes at 1/2/4x which equates to 9/18/36x cd speeds. The only
reason DVD-Rs take long to record is because they are 7 times bigger
than a cd.

David


  #12   Report Post  
Buckaroo
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

Unbelievable tripe. WRONG.


CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies

because
of the fewer sampling points there. Higher sampling rates lessen the
effects.




  #13   Report Post  
Jan Philips
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:40:40 +0200, "Sasa [Sason] Miocic"
wrote:

Tell me how are you gonna discribe sine wave with 2 sample points?


I think he said "more than 2 points". With a point at time=0, one
1/44,100 second later and 1/44,100 second after that, there is a
unique sine wave with frequency 22,050 that fits those points.
Hopefully that will be close to the original sound.


  #14   Report Post  
Buckaroo
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

Unbelievable tripe. WRONG

"Gareth Hardy" wrote in message
...
Higher resolution - up to 96KHz compared to 44.1KHz for CD audio)

No audible benefits.


CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies
because of the fewer sampling points there.


Irrelevant and wrong.


I'm not an audio expert, but I thought that having a higher sampling rate

is
not primarily to benefit the high frequency waveforms. It creates a

smoother
waveform at lower frequencies so polyphonics sound clearer.

As well as being no expert, chances are I wouldn't notice the difference
between 44.1KHz audio and 96KHz anyway.






  #15   Report Post  
Buckaroo
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

Look at the theorem from Nyquist in mathematical form. You are spewing BS.

"Sasa [Sason] Miocic" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies
because of the fewer sampling points there.


Irrelevant and wrong.

There are no tricks, just proven technology.


What technology? Assigning voltage to a time point?

As long as there are slightly more than two sampling points, the
reconstruction of amplitude and phase is near-perfect.


Yes, near perfect, or maybe harsh? Tell me how are you gonna discribe sine
wave with 2 sample points? You can't, it is gonna be a triangle wave. So
higher the freqs on CD, sharper they become. Thats why more sample points
are needed in high-end audio. And if you have good speakers, you can

really,
maybe not actually hear the difference, but feel the difference between
44.1kHz and 96kHz sampling rate. I would discribe it as a more open,
brilliant, sparkling, fresh full airy sound. You can laugh but it's true



Furthermore in CD audio, that happens at or above 22.05 KHz, which is

way
more than people can hear the absence of in a musical/voice context.


True that we cannot "hear" above 22k or below 20Hz. But have you ever

"felt"
15Hz? Psicho acoustics are playing with that kind of problems.






  #16   Report Post  
FDR
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

It's true. The output is filtered in a way to basically fill-in the missing
data points. Take a course in DSP sometime.

"Buckaroo" wrote in message
...
Unbelievable tripe. WRONG.


CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies

because
of the fewer sampling points there. Higher sampling rates lessen the
effects.






  #17   Report Post  
Lon Stowell
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

Or get a refund on one that teaches this. What data points
are allegedly missing?

FDR wrote:
It's true. The output is filtered in a way to basically fill-in the missing
data points. Take a course in DSP sometime.

"Buckaroo" wrote in message
...

Unbelievable tripe. WRONG.



CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies


because

of the fewer sampling points there. Higher sampling rates lessen the
effects.








  #18   Report Post  
Erik Harris
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

On 25 Jun 2003 09:05:13 -0700, (David) wrote:

A dvdr is the same as 7 cdr and you can get a good dvdr disc for less
than £1.00 now.


And a good CD-R for less than 5 cents, if you keep an eye out for sales,
rebates, and other deals.

25 dvd-r for less than £20(remember thats the same as 175 cdr discs).


For reliable discs that write faster than 1X? Faster than 2X? The 5 cent
CD's I mentioned above are usually approved for 48-52X speeds (and actually,
last time I bought a spindle, I paid 2 cents per disc, not 5).

My prices are being quoted in US Dollars, but even without any conversion,
it's plain to see that CD's are a hell of a lot cheaper per unit storage than
DVD's. CD-R has matured to the point where brand reliability is almost a
non-issue (and many unbranded discs are made by the more reputable
manufacturers anyhow), yet DVD-/+R hasn't matured to that point yet, and you
need to be a little more careful to get a brand of disc that "plays nice"
with your writer and with players. So pretty much any CD media is pretty
reliable, at 2-8 cents (US) for fastest-speed media, whereas a reliable 4X
DVD-/+R still costs over $1 here in the States (usually $2 or so). And with
prices being 10-50 times higher, buying in bulk is less of an option, which
further raises the per-unit price (I can afford to buy a spindle of 100 CD's,
but with the way prices are heading, and the way I use the media, buying a
spindle of 100 DVD's would be a huge waste of money).

It's _awfully_ hard to argue that DVD is cheaper than CD per unit storage,
unless you go the route of arguing for physical storage space (on your
shelf), and factor in the average usage of a disc (i.e. most CD-R's are not
filled to capacity).

--
Erik Harris
AIM: KngFuJoe
http://www.eharrishome.com
Chinese-Indonesian MA Club http://www.eharrishome.com/cimac/

The above email address is obfuscated to try to prevent SPAM.
Replace each dollar sign with an "e" for the correct address.
  #19   Report Post  
Lon Stowell
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

I do realize you are making this up as you go along.

Wrong is wrong and all your hand waving and avoidance won't
change the fact that you simply do not have a clue what you
are talking about.

As for the ears hearing analog, you may want to check a good
physiology reference or articles in Scientific American as
to how the ear really perceives sound and how the signals
from the inner ear [past the bones and drum] are passed
to the brain. Not that it has one single solitary thing
to do with whether or not players have filters to "fill in
the missing data points", but you are wrong on the ears as
well.

FDR 0 Facts 2.



FDR wrote:
You do realize that the ear hears analog, not digital, right?

"Lon Stowell" wrote in message
...

Or get a refund on one that teaches this. What data points
are allegedly missing?

FDR wrote:

It's true. The output is filtered in a way to basically fill-in the


missing

data points. Take a course in DSP sometime.

"Buckaroo" wrote in message
...


Unbelievable tripe. WRONG.




CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies

because


of the fewer sampling points there. Higher sampling rates lessen the
effects.










  #20   Report Post  
FDR
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.


"Lon Stowell" wrote in message
...
I do realize you are making this up as you go along.

Wrong is wrong and all your hand waving and avoidance won't
change the fact that you simply do not have a clue what you
are talking about.

As for the ears hearing analog, you may want to check a good
physiology reference or articles in Scientific American as
to how the ear really perceives sound and how the signals
from the inner ear [past the bones and drum] are passed
to the brain. Not that it has one single solitary thing
to do with whether or not players have filters to "fill in
the missing data points", but you are wrong on the ears as
well.


I've done a report on the ear for a class referencing medical books that my
wife has (she's a physician). I know how the ear works, so don't act
condescending to me. I also know that everyday sounds are analog in nature.
Sound pressure gets transduced though a microphone to an analog voltage,
then gets converted to binary and loses some info because of sampling and
other errors, get's reproduced to analog with some interpolation to recover
some lost info and amplified to a usable signal that can be put through a
speaker to recreate sound pressure.




  #21   Report Post  
Gareth Hardy
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

Unbelievable tripe. WRONG

Not good enough, Buckaroo.

Your contribution to this thread seems to be telling everyone how crap they
are without offering any pointers as to why.

While I'm quite happy to be told I'm wrong (when I am, which is often), I
think it's only fair to state why. There are plenty of people other than me
who are equally misguided and can benefit from your huge wisdom.

So come on, enlighten us.


  #22   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

"Gareth Hardy" wrote in
message
Higher resolution - up to 96KHz compared to 44.1KHz for CD audio)

No audible benefits.


CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies
because of the fewer sampling points there.


Irrelevant and wrong.


I'm not an audio expert, but I thought that having a higher sampling
rate is not primarily to benefit the high frequency waveforms.


What higher sampling rates do is allow recording and playing back of waves
at higher frequencies. That's different than benefiting high frequency waves
that are recorded by a given sample rate.

It creates a smoother waveform at lower frequencies so polyphonics sound

clearer.

Wrong. Since you admit you don't know what you are talking about, let me
tell you the basics.

A properly-designed and operating digital system provides essentially
perfect reproduction of all waves (subject to sample size and format
considerations) up to a frequency equal to about half the sample rate, AKA
the Nyquist frequency. For audio CDs that's about 22 KHz. For a variety of
practical reasons, Nyquist is hard to approach exactly , but a 44.1 KHz CD
can reasonably be expected to work up to about 20 KHz.

IOW on an audio CD, 20 Hz and 20 KHz are reproduced with equal accuracy.
There are more samples in the 20 Hz wave, but believe it or not that makes
no practical difference at all.

As well as being no expert, chances are I wouldn't notice the
difference between 44.1KHz audio and 96KHz anyway.


That comes from being human and not a bat or a dog.


  #23   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

"FDR" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"FDR" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Gareth Hardy" wrote in
message
With the price of stand-alone DVD recorders coming down to
reasonable levels do you think it would be a good idea to buy a
DVD recorder for my home audio system, (using it, in part, to
preserve old analog recordings), and just skip buying a CD
recorder altogether? (I've got a burner for my pc, but that's
all.) What would be the pluses and minuses of doing this? Thanks
for any comments.

Ever hear of using computers for audio?

It works!

Advantages of CDR:
Portability - you can use them in your car, at your mates etc
Price - CDR can be obtained for about 20% the price of a DVD-R
Readiness - Sounds like you already have the kit you need.

Advantages of DVDR:

Higher resolution - up to 96KHz compared to 44.1KHz for CD audio)

No audible benefits.


CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies
because of the fewer sampling points there.


Irrelevant and wrong.

There are no tricks, just proven technology.


Nyquist states that 2f is the sampling rate. Tell me what you get
when any sine wavel looks like when it's sampled at twice it's
frequency.


OK we've got another jerk-off who can't tell the difference between what I
said which was:

"As long as there are slightly more than two sampling points, the
reconstruction of amplitude and phase is near-perfect."

and

"Tell me what you get when any sine wave looks like when it's sampled at
twice it's
frequency."

At Nyquist and higher the digitized waveform is undefined. It can literally
be anything.


The actual reconstruction can be that of a triangle,
sawtooth or flatline depending on the time it was sampled.


Wrong, its undefined because sampling a wave at Nyquist is improper. I
suppose you never heard of anti-aliasing filters either?

The purpose of an anti-aliasing filter is to prevent the conundrum you
presented. Every good digital system has at least one.

If you want to waste your time worrying about improperly-designed systems,
be my guest, but not on my time or my post!

Fact is that there are fewer data points at the high end.


It makes no difference, even in the real world. You need to spend some lab
time before you shoot of your mouth with tripe like this.

You can never retrieve data that's not there.


Hence anti-aliasing filters.

Yes, there are algorithms to
shape the signal and try to reconstruct it to the original but it's
just harder and less accurate.


Nope, you're grotesquely wrong. Nobody even tries.

Sampling something at 8x vs. 2x will always be preferred.


You're using words you obviously don't know the meaning of.

As long as there are slightly more than two sampling points, the
reconstruction of amplitude and phase is near-perfect.


How near perfect? Won't it be more near perfect with more data
points?


Nope.

This reminds me of the figure of the face on the Mars. Then when
they got higher resolution pictures you could easily tell that it
wasn't a face.


Irrelevant metaphor.

Furthermore in CD audio, that happens at or above 22.05 KHz, which
is way more than people can hear the absence of in a musical/voice
context.


CD players use steep filters to reject anything above 20khz so it
doesn't matter.


Actually that happens when the recording is digitized, not when it is
reconstructed in the CD player.

AFAIK there are no bias-controlled, level-matched, time-synchronized
listening tests that show otherwise, and doing such tests is nearly

trivial
in this day and age.


Maybe, but I know that high end frequencies on a CD sound harsh to my
ears.


The fact that your system is out of balance and needs some spectral
contouring is not my problem, and its not the fault of the digital recording
process.

Higher sampling rates lessen the effects.


AFAIK there are no bias-controlled, level-matched, time-synchronized
listening tests that show that either, and doing such tests is again

nearly
trivial in this day and age.


If you need to hear for yourself, take your 24/96 sound card over to
www.pcabx.com and take a listen.


Needless to say, we've got another internet troll who won't actually sully
himself by coming face-to-face with the relevant facts.

Yawn!


  #24   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

"FDR" wrote in message


It's true. The output is filtered in a way to basically fill-in the
missing data points. Take a course in DSP sometime.


The points aren't missing if they aren't necessary.



  #25   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

"David" wrote in message
om

Disadvantages of DVD-R:


(1) DVD-R drives are at least 3-4x more expensive than CD-R drives.


A DVD-RW drive can be brought for less than £100 now which is only £50
more than the highest spec CD-RW drive.


Debating trade crap logic. So, the cheapest DVD recorder only costs a bit
more than the most expensive CD recorder. Do you realize how erroneous this
logic is or are you really that bloody stupid?

(2) Recording software to actually exploit the hardware capabilities
of the DVD can be relatively expensive. We're talking $100's versus
free.


Only about £30 for ulead dvd moviefactory or something similar.


Tell me about how you can a 6-channel 24/96 audio recording or a 2-channel
24/192 recording with Ulead DVD Movie Factory.

It can't.

That's because this cheap software doesn't fully exploit the potential of
the DVD format, particularly for audio. It's for putting pictures and movies
on DVDs, not high quality sound!

Could you learn to read the specs before you waste my time with crap like
this?


(3) DVD-Rs are relatively slow recorders of CD-Rs.


DVD-R writes at 1/2/4x which equates to 9/18/36x cd speeds. The only
reason DVD-Rs take long to record is because they are 7 times bigger
than a cd.


Last time I looked a cheap CD recorder can write at 52x. 52x 36x. end of
story.

Look I have before me two PC's on a 2-channel KVM switch. If I take my hands
off the keyboard I put one hand on top of each one. One has a Pioneer DVR
104 DVD recorder and one has a Liteon 52x CD-R burner. They both have EZ CD
5 as well as other popular burning software on them.

Do you have any questions?

;-)





  #26   Report Post  
Golitely
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

"FDR" wrote

It's true. The output is filtered in a way to basically fill-in the missing
data points. Take a course in DSP sometime.

"Buckaroo" wrote in message
...
Unbelievable tripe. WRONG.


CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high frequencies

because
of the fewer sampling points there. Higher sampling rates lessen the
effects.


Thanks everyone for all the comments and info, and lively discussion,
so far. What about the issue of *recording* the digital information?
Wouldn't differences between sampling rates, number of bits and DACs
used have some impact on how precise or detailed the recording will
be? Also, concerning the audio portion of DVD recording/playback, are
there any unresolved issues surroundng competing formats, just in the
area of *stereo* playback, leaving off matters involving 5.1 and so
forth? Thanks again.
  #27   Report Post  
Gareth Hardy
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

Wrong. Since you admit you don't know what you are talking about, let me
tell you the basics.


Thanks, Arny. That's all I needed. The silence from buckaroo is deafening
(or is that a sampling rate problem).

I still don't really understand, but thanks for trying. My understanding now
is that if decoded properly, the same WAV file (say a tuba) will sound the
same at 32KHz, 48Khz and 96KHz because having extra samples at low frequency
will only smooth out to what the DAC would have done with fewer samples
anyway (I think).




  #28   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

"Golitely" wrote in message
om
"FDR" wrote

It's true. The output is filtered in a way to basically fill-in the
missing data points. Take a course in DSP sometime.

"Buckaroo" wrote in message
...
Unbelievable tripe. WRONG.


CD players use tricks to smooth out the waveform at high
frequencies

because
of the fewer sampling points there. Higher sampling rates lessen
the effects.


Thanks everyone for all the comments and info, and lively discussion,
so far. What about the issue of *recording* the digital information?
Wouldn't differences between sampling rates, number of bits and DACs
used have some impact on how precise or detailed the recording will
be?


Number of bits per sample, yes.

Also, concerning the audio portion of DVD recording/playback, are
there any unresolved issues surrounding competing formats, just in the
area of *stereo* playback, leaving off matters involving 5.1 and so
forth? Thanks again.


The interesting challenge is to make a 2-channel 24/96 or 24/192 DVD
recording with a reasonable outlay for recording software, i.e., less than
$100.


  #29   Report Post  
Sasa [Sason] Miocic
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Digital audio technology. You ought to try to learn how it works some

day!

I don't remember saying that I don't know the subject...

Assigning voltage to a time point?


Oh spare me the expert-sounding horsecrap!


That horsecrap is basic fundation of digital recording...

Yet another craphead who can't read. I specifically excluded that
possibility when I said:

"As long as there are slightly more than two sampling points, the
reconstruction of amplitude and phase is near-perfect."


Yes, slightly more than two. And higher it goes, less it becomes. I just
concluded, and brought new thought.
Nice, call your fellowgroupmembers crapheads. Agression comes from fear. Yo
do not have to be affraid, sometimes people makes mistakes, even you...

So higher the freqs on CD, sharper they become.


My boy you need to get your head out from that book where the sun shines
not, and spend some time in the real world.


Yeah yeah...

Thats why more
sample points are needed in high-end audio.


Nope, wrong.

And if you have good
speakers, you can really, maybe not actually hear the difference, but
feel the difference between
44.1kHz and 96kHz sampling rate.


Wrong. Look I told you were you could go and listen for yourself. Let me
guess, you're too cheap to buy a good 24/96 sound card. You spent all your
money on vinyl and toobs. Well, don't come belly-aching to me with your
erroneous crap.


Listen, not everybody can afford expensive digital stuff. However, I use
Echoaudio mia 24/96 which is more than a good soundcard.
And no, I dont use vinyl. Tube as a preamp yes.
So you only gave one page, maybe you just learned everything from there?
Let's not make stupid conclusions okay?

I would describe it as a more open,
brilliant, sparkling, fresh full airy sound. You can laugh but it's
true


It's false and its easy to demonstrate that its false. Just listen at the
place I told you to go listen to.


It is false that 96kHz is better sounding than 44.1kHz?!
Man, this is going to my archive to laugh occasionally...

True that we cannot "hear" above 22k or below 20Hz. But have you ever
"felt" 15Hz? Psicho acoustics are playing with that kind of problems.


I can hear a 15 KHz sine wave if its loud enough. Why would I need to

worry
about whether I can feel it or not?


No, actually you can't hear it. You can feel it. As you can feel supersonic
sounds. I don't have time to explain it to you now, read some books...

But again you can't read. What I said is

"Furthermore in CD audio, that happens at or above 22.05 KHz, which is way
more than people can hear the absence of in a musical/voice context.:

If you sit and think about it and have average or better intelligence, you
might eventually get what I was trying to say. If not, have an adult

explain
it to you!


Maybe you should think of you additude first, and then try to speak. Sound
better, like 96k...


  #30   Report Post  
David
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.


And a good CD-R for less than 5 cents, if you keep an eye out for sales,
rebates, and other deals.


Not here in the UK. Cheapest CDR i have seen is about 20p. The cost of
importing CD-R from the states would cancell out any saving I would
have made.


25 dvd-r for less than £20(remember thats the same as 175 cdr discs).


For reliable discs that write faster than 1X? Faster than 2X? The 5 cent
CD's I mentioned above are usually approved for 48-52X speeds (and actually,
last time I bought a spindle, I paid 2 cents per disc, not 5).


Prices taken from www.blankshop.co.uk

Datawrite Yellow 4x DVD-R pack of 25 = £24.75
Datawrite Red 4x DVD-R pack of 25 = £19.74
Pioneer 4x DVD-R in slim jewel case = £4.00
Ice branded 4x DVD-R in packs of 25 = £19.99
Ice branded 4x DVD-R in a tub of 100 = £79.00
unbranded Ritek 4x DVD-R in pack of 25 = £31.24
unbranded Ritek 4x DVD-R in pack of 100 = £124.98
Datawrite Ritek 4x DVD-R in pack of 25 = £32.25
Memorex 4.7gb 4x DVD-R in a jewel case = £1.49
Memorex 4.7gb 4x DVD-R in pack of 10 = £13.90

Could go on but i won't.

David


  #31   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

"Gareth Hardy" wrote in
message
Wrong. Since you admit you don't know what you are talking about,
let me tell you the basics.


Thanks, Arny. That's all I needed. The silence from buckaroo is
deafening (or is that a sampling rate problem).

I still don't really understand, but thanks for trying. My
understanding now is that if decoded properly, the same WAV file (say
a tuba) will sound the same at 32KHz, 48Khz and 96KHz because having
extra samples at low frequency will only smooth out to what the DAC
would have done with fewer samples anyway (I think).


The understanding I want you to have is that a 96 KHz WAV file (say of a
tuba) will sound the same at 32KHz, 44 Khz and 96KHz, as long as the extra
high frequency extension afforded by the higher sample rate doesn't have any
audible consequences.

For example, a 96 KHz .WAV file won't sound the same if properly downsampled
to 22 KHz because chopping off all information above 11 KHz often DOES have
audible consequences.

OTOH, a 96 KHz wave file will sound the same if properly downsampled to 44.1
KHz because chopping off all information above 22 KHz generally DOESN'T have
audible consequences.

Anybody who doesn't believe me need only listen for themselves to the files
freely downloadable at http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm
.. Be sure to use one of the DBT test coordinators freely downloadable from
http://www.pcabx.com/program/index.htm , and follow the instructions posted
at http://www.pcabx.com/training/getting_started.htm .


  #32   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

"Sasa [Sason] Miocic" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Digital audio technology. You ought to try to learn how it works
some day!


I don't remember saying that I don't know the subject...

Assigning voltage to a time point?


Oh spare me the expert-sounding horsecrap!


That horsecrap is basic fundation of digital recording...


No it's not.

Yet another craphead who can't read. I specifically excluded that
possibility when I said:


"As long as there are slightly more than two sampling points, the
reconstruction of amplitude and phase is near-perfect."


Yes, slightly more than two. And higher it goes, less it becomes. I
just concluded, and brought new thought.


Wrong, you added nothing but errors.

Nice, call your fellowgroupmembers crapheads. Agression comes from
fear. Yo do not have to be affraid, sometimes people makes mistakes,
even you...


Sasa, you were pretending to be an expert and continue to do so.

So higher the freqs on CD, sharper they become.


My boy you need to get your head out from that book where the sun
shines not, and spend some time in the real world.


Yeah yeah...


Thats why more
sample points are needed in high-end audio.


Nope, wrong.


And if you have good
speakers, you can really, maybe not actually hear the difference,
but feel the difference between
44.1kHz and 96kHz sampling rate.


Wrong. Look I told you were you could go and listen for yourself.
Let me guess, you're too cheap to buy a good 24/96 sound card. You
spent all your money on vinyl and toobs. Well, don't come
belly-aching to me with your erroneous crap.


Listen, not everybody can afford expensive digital stuff.


Listen 24/96 sound cards aren't all that expensive any more.

However, I
use Echoaudio mia 24/96 which is more than a good soundcard.


Agreed. The Mia is entirely suitable for your education in this matter.

Now hitch that Mia to the files and programs you can download from
www.pcabx.com and get started for some basic lessons in audio audibility.

And no, I dont use vinyl. Tube as a preamp yes.
So you only gave one page, maybe you just learned everything from
there? Let's not make stupid conclusions okay?


You obviously didn't read that page.

I would describe it as a more open,
brilliant, sparkling, fresh full airy sound. You can laugh but it's
true


It's false and its easy to demonstrate that its false. Just listen
at the place I told you to go listen to.


It is false that 96kHz is better sounding than 44.1kHz?!


Yes.

Man, this is going to my archive to laugh occasionally...


Come back when you have had your ears opened at www.pcabx.com .

True that we cannot "hear" above 22k or below 20Hz. But have you
ever "felt" 15Hz? Psicho acoustics are playing with that kind of
problems.


I can hear a 15 KHz sine wave if its loud enough. Why would I need
to worry about whether I can feel it or not?


No, actually you can't hear it. You can feel it. As you can feel
supersonic sounds. I don't have time to explain it to you now, read
some books...


But again you can't read. What I said is


"Furthermore in CD audio, that happens at or above 22.05 KHz, which
is way more than people can hear the absence of in a musical/voice
context.:


If you sit and think about it and have average or better
intelligence, you might eventually get what I was trying to say. If
not, have an adult explain it to you!


Maybe you should think of you additude first, and then try to speak.
Sound better, like 96k...


Sasa, you've already shown what your attitude is with your claim that
www.pcabx.com is just a single page. It's a whole freakin' web site that
would educate you well, were you to actually lower yourself to spend some
time with it.

But Sasa, you obviously know it all. Who am I to try to dispel your
erroneous thinking?


  #33   Report Post  
Jan Philips
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:22:03 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Nyquist states that 2f is the sampling rate. Tell me what you get
when any sine wavel looks like when it's sampled at twice it's
frequency.


At Nyquist and higher the digitized waveform is undefined. It can literally
be anything.


In the analog to digital conversion, a Fourier transform is used, and
an inverse Fourier transform for digital to analog, right?

Hence anti-aliasing filters.


What exactly does it do (briefly)?


  #34   Report Post  
FDR
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Sasa, you've already shown what your attitude is with your claim that
www.pcabx.com is just a single page. It's a whole freakin' web site that
would educate you well, were you to actually lower yourself to spend some
time with it.


This says it all about that PAGE:

"This Page created 9/22/1999

This Page last updated 06/02/2003

(c) Copyright 1999, 2000, 2001 Arnold B. Krueger, All rights reserved."


It's your PAGE and you even say it's a PAGE.

If you can't even remember what you wrote or what you have on the web then
what use are you?




  #35   Report Post  
Jan Philips
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

The understanding I want you to have is that a 96 KHz WAV file (say of a
tuba) will sound the same at 32KHz, 44 Khz and 96KHz, as long as the extra
high frequency extension afforded by the higher sample rate doesn't have any
audible consequences.

....
OTOH, a 96 KHz wave file will sound the same if properly downsampled to 44.1
KHz because chopping off all information above 22 KHz generally DOESN'T have
audible consequences.


I'm wondering - why does DAT use a 68KHz sampling rate if it doesn't
do any good to go that high?





  #36   Report Post  
FDR
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.


"Jan Philips" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:22:03 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Nyquist states that 2f is the sampling rate. Tell me what you get
when any sine wavel looks like when it's sampled at twice it's
frequency.


At Nyquist and higher the digitized waveform is undefined. It can

literally
be anything.


In the analog to digital conversion, a Fourier transform is used, and
an inverse Fourier transform for digital to analog, right?


No, generally a A/D samples a signal and then depending on the voltage
level, it determines what the corresponding binary would be. It's not that
complicated. The check is sometimes done against a decaying time constant
or a step voltage. The analog voltage input has limits (say 0 to 4 volts)
and the binary has limits (say 0 to 2^16).


  #37   Report Post  
Jan Philips
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:36:29 GMT, "FDR"
wrote:

No, generally a A/D samples a signal and then depending on the voltage
level, it determines what the corresponding binary would be.


Ok, and the Fourier transform isn't involved? I thought that it
probably was, since the process seems so similar to what a Fourier
transform and inverse Fourier transform does.


  #38   Report Post  
Jan Philips
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:13:17 GMT, "FDR"
wrote:

Fourier transforms just transform from time domain to frequency domain.


Yes, I realized that later, only the D/A is like a Fourier transform.

You can use Fourier to do processing, but for just digitizing an analog
signal a simple D/A is the way to go.


And a simple D/A doesn't use Fourier transform? The FT would take the
data obtained form A/D and tell you which set of sine waves -
frequency and phase - (or any set of orthogonal functions) would
reproduce the original signal as closely as possible with the data you
have (subject to the Nyquist limit).

From what I've been told, the D/A conversion interpolates a smooth
curve through the data points, not simply a stair-step. If it doesn't
use the FT then what does it do - a cubic interpolation or something
like that?


  #39   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

"Jan Philips" wrote in message
news
The understanding I want you to have is that a 96 KHz WAV file (say
of a tuba) will sound the same at 32KHz, 44 Khz and 96KHz, as long
as the extra high frequency extension afforded by the higher sample
rate doesn't have any audible consequences.

...
OTOH, a 96 KHz wave file will sound the same if properly downsampled
to 44.1 KHz because chopping off all information above 22 KHz
generally DOESN'T have audible consequences.


I'm wondering - why does DAT use a 68KHz sampling rate if it doesn't
do any good to go that high?


DAT uses 48 KHz and 44.1 Khz.

48 KHz was chosen to provide similar bandpass characteristics as 15 ips
analog tape. It was known at the time that 24 KHz was somewhat overkill, but
the difference between and 44.1 and 48 isn't really worth arguing about.


  #40   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVDr vs CDr.

"Jan Philips" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:13:17 GMT, "FDR"
wrote:

Fourier transforms just transform from time domain to frequency
domain.


Yes, I realized that later, only the D/A is like a Fourier transform.

You can use Fourier to do processing, but for just digitizing an
analog signal a simple D/A is the way to go.


And a simple D/A doesn't use Fourier transform?


Nor does an A/D.

The FT would take the
data obtained form A/D and tell you which set of sine waves -
frequency and phase - (or any set of orthogonal functions) would
reproduce the original signal as closely as possible with the data you
have (subject to the Nyquist limit).


But you don't need sort of complexity that to just record, play back, and
transmit music.

From what I've been told, the D/A conversion interpolates a smooth
curve through the data points, not simply a stair-step.


The interpolation is generally done via a conceptually simple but
steep-sloped low-pass filter.

If it doesn't
use the FT then what does it do - a cubic interpolation or something
like that?


A conceptually-simple low pass filter suffices wonderfully. The low pass
filter gets a little complex when one tries to have good filtering at and
above Nyquist, but smooth response below. Nevertheless, its now usually
mostly done in the digital domain via oversampling, and has low analog parts
count.


 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:16 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"