jbsl Posted July 31, 2005 Author Share Posted July 31, 2005 Thanks for all the replies I'm still learning about this aspect of using the computer so it may take awhile to proccess everything!! What I am trying to do is make a cd with songs from different cds and play it on my 2 channel stereo system. So how do I make a exact copy of a cd to my harddrive. I have a Sony dual layer DVD/RW player. I also have a version of Nero that came with the sony. Then after making exact copies to the harddrive how do I pick the songs I want to burn to a cd and burn exact copies of the songs onto the cd. Is it possible to take a DVD R/RW and then burn 2-4 hours of music onto it? Once I learn how to do this the cassette player will not be needed. Thanks again for all the info! Xman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meuge Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 It's Nero 6 Ultra, and it's great. To copy the CD directly, you can just use the Copy CD function. You don't need to specify that it's music. I, on the other hand, prefer to rip the music to the hard drive first, using CDEx... and burn it to a CD later, if necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 I agree, given the current choices, I would go with Nero. And given the crazy incompatibilities with Roxio and XP (past versions and compatibility with OSs were pretty good- the reason I persisted in playing with it), and the fact that Roxio was recently acquired by Sonic, and that their support is lousy at best, it only serves to move back over to Nero. I think that using Nero you will be quite happy with the results using the bit copy function (copy a disk). And again, if you are looking for a new 'latest-greatest' dual layer 16x DVD-RW /CD-RW burner, check out NewEgg, as they are bundling various NEC burners with OEM Nero for less then the cost of Nero alone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 I have no doubt that Roxio could be awful. But as I stated earlier, I am still using Win2K and an older version of Roxio (5.x something) It will be interesting this Fall, as we are upgrading our two larger computer labs at school to PCs running XP Pro. They will have CD/RWs in them. I am not sure what burning software comes with them, but I think I'll seek the answer on Monday. Bruce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 Nero is consistently the most stable, but then Nero 6 (the monster DVD/CD burning package) seems to be a resource hog in my observations.... I set it up on a WinXP machine with 512MB RAM and a 2.4Ghz Athlon and it was slowwwwwww - painfully so, on DVD's... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgb Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 Don't let these birds fool you , your RX-202, if functioning well, will make copies of records and CDs that will be just fine. The RX-202 is 20-20 +/-3db and you should get a S/N 74 or so with Dolby C. Few records will do better than that (the junk preamps being sold for computers go only to about 60db), and only very well mastered CDs exceed that (listen to most any pre-90 mastered CD for an example). I have a Nakamichi CR-5 and Dragon that will record SACDs that will challenge even an experienced ear in an A/B. On most run of the mill CDs you can't tell the difference. Plus your tape will play on any tape deck and will not spontaneously combust (No Disc error) like many CD-Rs, which can be ruined by excessive heat (Car player anyone?). That's not to say a good CD-R set up can't be had, but good media is hard to find, expensive ($2-$3 a disk) and won't work on most CD players made before about 2000. I used EAC to rip and Nero to burn with good results as long as I used Kodak, Maxell Pro or other Gold Disks. Cheap media like Imation, Memorex, regular Maxell, or store brand (Office Depot, etc) will result in poor recordings and poor shelf life. CDs are great for cars and computers, but I personally find a good tape made on a good deck better and more reliable. The RX-202 is a 2-head deck, but is respectable. I had a CR-2 which served me well for many years. But the sound of the top 3-head Naks is beautiful, rich and big. Some Naks have useable frequency responses of 10Hz-35+KHz, and many are flat from 18-24KHz (+/-3db). These are the ZX7 and ZX9, CR-5,CR-7, Dragon, 682ZX come to mind. Nak heads up to the 3 head CR series are much, much better than any other company, hence the much greater specs. Too bad they never included Dolby S though. But they are not cheap, as nothing of quality usually is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbsl Posted August 2, 2005 Author Share Posted August 2, 2005 DGB I'll do the Naka test this weekend and post my results. I'm hoping Radio Shack has some decent cassette tapes to use. Xman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Referring to what was mentioned above... Good CD-R media costs $2-3 a piece!????? Tape is not subject to heat??? And 74dB is great S/N!??? Huh!? Watch out folks!, cassettes are set to take the world by storm! Not! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbsl Posted August 2, 2005 Author Share Posted August 2, 2005 Not even if they sound better than cds!! people want to be able to skip to the next track imediately and all the other bells and whistles that come with cds. There might be some people who prefer the sound recorded on a very good cassette player but only a very few. I am curious how the SACD and DVD Audio sounds on cassette. Xman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meuge Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 ---------------- On 8/1/2005 1:07:41 PM dgb wrote: That's not to say a good CD-R set up can't be had, but good media is hard to find, expensive ($2-$3 a disk) and won't work on most CD players made before about 2000. I used EAC to rip and Nero to burn with good results as long as I used Kodak, Maxell Pro or other Gold Disks. Cheap media like Imation, Memorex, regular Maxell, or store brand (Office Depot, etc) will result in poor recordings and poor shelf life. CDs are great for cars and computers, but I personally find a good tape made on a good deck better and more reliable. ---------------- With all due respect, the paragraph above is misleading, at best. The "quality" of CD-Rs is an iffy issue. Deterioration of CDs is a real problem... but curiously enough - I have never encountered it. Every CD I have burned ages ago... still works, and I use very cheap media (10c/disk). But while longevity may suffer, in theory, and in the long run, there is NO DIFFERENCE between cheap and expensive media, or between the original and the copy for that matter. EAC and Nero copy information so that it remains BIT PERFECT. The only way for the audio quality to decrease is to compress the music before burning it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgb Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Sorry, you're just wrong on this. There is a definite and established difference between matierials used in CD-Rs. Some burn incomplete, some "melt" rather than burn, giving inaccurate copies, some are more susceptable to heat than others. I have had many, many disks go bad over the years that I have recieved in trades. Most were cheap store brand disks with light green dye. I haven't had a single Kodak Gold disk go bad in nearly 10 years though. If you cannot hear the difference between an original CD and a CD burt on crap media at 48x you might want to get some Bose. ---------------- With all due respect, the paragraph above is misleading, at best. The "quality" of CD-Rs is an iffy issue. Deterioration of CDs is a real problem... but curiously enough - I have never encountered it. Every CD I have burned ages ago... still works, and I use very cheap media (10c/disk). But while longevity may suffer, in theory, and in the long run, there is NO DIFFERENCE between cheap and expensive media, or between the original and the copy for that matter. EAC and Nero copy information so that it remains BIT PERFECT. The only way for the audio quality to decrease is to compress the music before burning it. ---------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgb Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 For CD-R Audio, yes good media is at least $2. Mitsumi Gold and Maxell Pro regular CD-Rs are $1+. Of course tape is suject to heat, but few people know that CD-Rs can be affected by heat as well. Plus if your tape warps it's usually only for a few inches of tape, it doesn't ruin the entire tape. Oh come on, how many CDs, much less records, are actually much better than 74db to begin with? Have you ever recorded with a top end tape deck? I have recorded with a component CD-R, a very good computer CD-R (both analogue and digital from an outboard ADC) and have used probably a hundered different CD-Rs. I put a lot of money into digital home recording and after several years have come to the conclusion that there really isn't a quality difference and that analogue tape is more stable and less prone to error. It is much less convienient, and I still burn CD-Rs for my car, I'm not dismissing CD-Rs. But the guy has a decent tape deck and if he can live with using tape there is no reason for him to get a CD burner. ---------------- On 8/2/2005 12:45:05 AM dragonfyr wrote: Referring to what was mentioned above... Good CD-R media costs $2-3 a piece!????? Tape is not subject to heat??? And 74dB is great S/N!??? Huh!? Watch out folks!, cassettes are set to take the world by storm! Not! ---------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgb Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 You can get Maxell XL-II at Wal-Mart or Office Depot. Much better tape than anything at Radio Shak. ---------------- On 8/2/2005 12:37:26 AM jbsl wrote: DGB I'll do the Naka test this weekend and post my results. I'm hoping Radio Shack has some decent cassette tapes to use. Xman ---------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgb Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 I agree CDs are FAR more convienient than tape, and of course prerecorded CDs will sound better than the corresponding tape since the mass production of cassette tape is far more detrimental to sound quality on tape than on CDs. High speed dubbing to crap tape on a $50 deck is a far cry from using a nice Maxell XLIIS or TDK MA on a $2500 Dragon. And as much as some of you guys spend on your turntables I don't want to hear any crap. (I "only" spend $750 on it, and the CR-5 was a steal at $65, originally $1200) As far as recording hi-res media, I was really impressed with the results, and of course it's the only way to record SACD, DVD-A or DVD to a recordable media (analogue that is). I've taped Smashing Pumpkins GH DVD, Foo Fighters DVD, RHCP DVD, Gaucho SACD and Peter Gabriel GH SACD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meuge Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 ---------------- On 8/2/2005 8:29:44 AM dgb wrote: If you cannot hear the difference between an original CD and a CD burt on crap media at 48x you might want to get some Bose. ---------------- I will put my money where my mouth is. I will get a couple of witnesses, then I'll get an original CD with reference-quality recording. Then I will make 2(!) successive copies of it using the cheapest media, at 40X. I will allow the software to check the data after the burn to make sure it copied successfully. Heck, I'll video tape the whole thing. Then, I will rip each CD to WAV, and have someone assign random names to the files, so that neither of us knows which files came from what CD. That information will be sealed in an zipped file under password, which my witness will give to you at the end of the experiment. I will then burn the files onto the most expensive CD I can find at the slowest speed possible, and send it to you, along with the original. According to you, the poor media will have caused the sound quality to deteriorate, thus affecting the rip as well (since it's digital, after all). After you make your judgement, you'll post the results here, and then my friend will post the password (heck we can even get someone from the board to do this so it's completely fair) and compare your judgement with the truth. If you can pick 75% of the tracks that are highest quality copies of the original, I will buy you a year's supply of the most expensive media I can find. If not, you can do something equally valuable for me... we can decide on that as we go. ARE YOU UP FOR A TEST? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgb Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 How about you copy the CD onto one cheap CD at 48x and one good CD at real time, then copy samples of both to a good CD at 1x. If I win you buy me a ten pack of Maxell XLIIS tapes, if I win I'll buy you a 50 pack of Office Depot crapola CD-Rs. I'm up for the challenge, although make sure you use some demanding source material. Of course copying successfully at 48x is another problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay L Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 use a program called clone cd. it is the only software i have found to copy anything with or without copy protection. it makes bit perfect copies as far as i can tell. once you use clone cd nothing else compares. it is long out of production but i can hel anyone find a copy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 There has been a LOT of info offered here, some good, some not so good. You can glean the following bit of fundamental truth from the whole thread, but let me state it clearly: Redbook to WAV software is simply a file copy, not transcoding, and will produce a clone copy from a CD in good condition. EAC or similar advanced software is capable of doing the same with CD's that have some degree of damage. Under most conditions, it is more reliable and faster to burn audio CD's from an image. Quality of media or speed of burn is irrelevant coming from an image. If there are issues, they will be painfully obvious and never subtle. All of the above applies only to operations in the digital domain. Once you start talking A-D and D-A, you've entered an area where skill and equipment rule and mileage varies. Having been through the above untold thousands of times over a decade, I am confident in those statements. My latest DAW design, the MBS-6, is quite capable of recording 4X24/96 channels in the field, mastering to DVD-A, and burning DVD-A flawlessly at 16X. Having been on the list awhile as well, I know there are those who will find fault and exceptions. Great. Like I said, your mileage may vary... Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbsl Posted August 2, 2005 Author Share Posted August 2, 2005 "EAC and Nero copy information so that it remains BIT PERFECT." Is this only to a CDR or to the harddrive? If only to a CDR then can I burn one song to the CDR and then put in another CD pick a second song and burn it to the CDR and continue until I've filled up the CDR or just have to burn the whole origanl CD to the CDR? If to the HD then when I want to make a playlist to burn I would choose from the nero library and burn to the CDR and it will be "BIT PERFECT"? Sorry if I'm frustrating some of you if I'm still not understanding the process. I just want to make a bit perfect playlist and burn it to A CDR. Once I figure that out then I will try it on both a "cheap" CDR and a "Gold" CDR and see if I can tell the difference and of course compared to recording straight from the cd player or SACD, DVD audio to the tape and compare all three. Also remember La Scalas reveil any bad recordings or lesser recordings. It is possible that even though my NAD C542 will play CDRs they may not play them very good. Is it possible that some players will read burnt CDRs better than others? Well got to run off to RAdio Shack and get some cassette stuff and soldering kit. Thanks for all the replies and advice!! Xman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgb Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 There is no doubt that EAC rips and Nero will copy the exact same data that is on the CD or the hard drive, but when you start burning at highspeeds on your standard CD burner, the pits burned into the medium don't burn thoroughly or burn inaccurately. I had a NAD C541 that technically could read CD-Rs, but did not read all of them, and some that it did read sounded bad and skipped. I did not read 80 minute CD-Rs at all. Some dyes burn better than others. As I noted earlier, I never had problems with it reading Kodak gold CDs that I burned at 1x. I have no problem reading any CD-Rs with my Philips 963. My old 1990 Nak spit out any CD-R. EAC is a terrific ripper too, never had any problems with it reading even the most brutalized Library CD. You are right, your LaScalias will definately reveal any shady recording. The efficency of Klipsch speakers can be both a blessing and a curse. I'd really reccomend getting Maxell XLIIs if you can. Tape medium is far, far more important the the CD medium for a good recording. The best way to do your copy is to rip from the CD to the harddrive using EAC. Which by the way will ususally READ no faster than 9x or 10x on my 64xread Yamaha CD-ROM. Then using the burning software of your choice create you playlist from the HD and burn to your CD-R. If it's just a copy for casual listening or the car, than high-speed burn is fine, but if it's something for critical listening or long term storage, I'd highly reccomend 1x or 2x. Copying straight from CD to CD-R on a standard computer is usually not a good idea and may freeze up the computer and ruin the disk. ---------------- On 8/2/2005 10:17:25 AM jbsl wrote: "EAC and Nero copy information so that it remains BIT PERFECT." Is this only to a CDR or to the harddrive? If only to a CDR then can I burn one song to the CDR and then put in another CD pick a second song and burn it to the CDR and continue until I've filled up the CDR or just have to burn the whole origanl CD to the CDR? If to the HD then when I want to make a playlist to burn I would choose from the nero library and burn to the CDR and it will be "BIT PERFECT"? Sorry if I'm frustrating some of you if I'm still not understanding the process. I just want to make a bit perfect playlist and burn it to A CDR. Once I figure that out then I will try it on both a "cheap" CDR and a "Gold" CDR and see if I can tell the difference and of course compared to recording straight from the cd player or SACD, DVD audio to the tape and compare all three. Also remember La Scalas reveil any bad recordings or lesser recordings. It is possible that even though my NAD C542 will play CDRs they may not play them very good. Is it possible that some players will read burnt CDRs better than others? Well got to run off to RAdio Shack and get some cassette stuff and soldering kit. Thanks for all the replies and advice!! Xman ---------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.