Unecessary cdr step in transfers of recording with known and unknown lineage.

[juxtiphi]

I have noticed that there are those who transfer music from what they say are masters or 1gen tapes and the new lineage now includes a rip from cd because instead of sharing the transfer directly they burn a cd and rip it from there for sharing.

this seems unnecessary to me, am I wrong? :hmm:

[AAR.oner]

completely unnecessary, and adds the possibility of introducing errors

[uninvited94]

But what if it isn't your own master or low gen? A trusted friend of yours has transferred his tapes for you and sent you the CDRs, you have a verified lineage and rip the CDR with EAC? I have dozens of "masters" that way.

[AAR.oner]

i usually ask em to send the wav(s) on a Data CDR, not an Audio CDR...that way there's no extraction process

but if they won't do it that way, then i guess thats the best yer gonna get

[juxtiphi]

But what if it isn't your own master or low gen? A trusted friend of yours has transferred his tapes for you and sent you the CDRs, you have a verified lineage and rip the CDR with EAC? I have dozens of "masters" that way.

Thats ok and I understand that, I have a bunch of stuff that came that way in a snail mail trades but here is an example of what i mean.

LINEAGE AUDIENCE DAT MASTER FIBER OPTIC TRANSFER TO CDR
BY --- -- TO EAC TO TLH FLAC LEVEL 8 TO YOU

this lineage suggests that they did the optic transfer to cdr so I am wondering why rip from the cd if they did the transfer themselves

[AAR.oner]

sounds like they are doing a DAT > standalone CD burner [via optical]

maybe they don't have the capabilities to do DAT > computer? or maybe its just how they wanna do it, i know thats what Freezer used to do

[juxtiphi]

sounds like they are doing a DAT > standalone CD burner [via optical]

maybe they don't have the capabilities to do DAT > computer? or maybe its just how they wanna do it, i know thats what Freezer used to do

Thats just one of the lineages I have seen, all their torrents have slightly different lineages ( equipment is usually different) but with a cdr step which seems on purpose but if its right to cdr then that would explain it.

[rspencer]

Not unusual with DAT. DAT drives for PCs are data drives, and don't always play well with music DATs. It's easier to just go directly to standalone CDR.

[Lucifer burns]

Let's all keep in mind that some of us are "oldtimers" and don't have the money to invest in new equipment or learn how to use all these new computer programs that for a novice can be very confusing.
Also while i respect this sites desire for quality uploads, it seems that they have passed judgement on what they believe in their minds is the right way and make it actually hard for people like me to share music here.
I understand why some formats are not allowed as they are truly lossy, but as an example of a recent problem, to ban all Minidisc recordings after 1/1/2008, seems more like a personal choice of the site rather then anything else.
Now if they have the research to prove ALL Minidisc recorders are lossy after 2008, i can understand the ban. But they have shown no proof, themselves and i doubt they did any real research before deciding on that.
If not, i would not be trying so hard to prove that my SONY Hi-MD recorder model MZ-M200 purchused in late 2009(After their ban) makes "Lossless" recordings.

[paddington]

Minidisc recordings are not banned, for any year, at TTD.

What is banned is ATRAC compression, used by most MiniDisc recorders, on any recording made after Jan 1 2008... because there is no reason to use ATRAC any longer.

If you make a lossless / uncompressed PCM recording, using a MiniDisc recorder, you may share it here, no problem.


In a nutshell, TTD requires lossless audio but makes exception for ATRAC compression on recordings made before Jan 1 2008... due to the state of recording technology in the years preceding that date.

[Audioarchivist]

As far as CDR in the lineage goes, I know that before I really knew what I was doing that I mastered a few of my tapes (with a borrowed computer) and was forced to make audio cdr's because I couldn't save the .wav data files. I do believe that a master > cdr from a taper is, while not an ideal situation, is acceptable....

Right?

[Lucifer burns]

Minidisc recordings are not banned, for any year, at TTD.

What is banned is ATRAC compression, used by most MiniDisc recorders, on any recording made after Jan 1 2008... because there is no reason to use ATRAC any longer.

If you make a lossless / uncompressed PCM recording, using a MiniDisc recorder, you may share it here, no problem.


In a nutshell, TTD requires lossless audio but makes exception for ATRAC compression on recordings made before Jan 1 2008... due to the state of recording technology in the years preceding that date.

So this is the only program on the market that can tell us when a Minidisc recording made after 1/1/2008 is lossy or not??

Cool Edit Pro 2.x / Adobe Audition

This not a cheap program and i did not see a "free trial version" available.

Before i purchused the SONY Hi-MD MZ-M200 i researched it in 2009(i was already a member here)to make sure it was not ATRAC or lossy in the standard modes. The manual even clearly denotes this with out actually using the word "lossy".
What i really think happened is that the technology has changed in Minidisc recorders since your ban in 2008, and you just don't want to admit you've made a mistake.
Instead it seems you want me to jump thru "hoops" to prove otherwise.
I've submitted the same frequency analysis at two other sites and they pass he "lossy test" for their sites, but it not good enough here??

Come on guys let's pull that ban until you can prove the oppisite or just admit that the technology changed and you were unaware.
We all make mistakes and no one will hold it against you.

I have no desire what's so ever to share "lossy" recordings and would glad support the ban....if you can prove otherwise.

[Audioarchivist]

So this is the only program on the market that can tell us when a Minidisc recording made after 1/1/2008 is lossy or not??

Cool Edit Pro 2.x / Adobe Audition

This not a cheap program and i did not see a "free trial version" available.

Before i purchused the SONY Hi-MD MZ-M200 i researched it in 2009(i was already a member here)to make sure it was not ATRAC or lossy in the standard modes. The manual even clearly denotes this with out actually using the word "lossy".
What i really think happened is that the technology has changed in Minidisc recorders since your ban in 2008, and you just don't want to admit you've made a mistake.
Instead it seems you want me to jump thru "hoops" to prove otherwise.
I've submitted the same frequency analysis at two other sites and they pass he "lossy test" for their sites, but it not good enough here??

Come on guys let's pull that ban until you can prove the oppisite or just admit that the technology changed and you were unaware.
We all make mistakes and no one will hold it against you.

I have no desire what's so ever to share "lossy" recordings and would glad support the ban....if you can prove otherwise.
Same post - two threads?

See my response here:
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1833429&postcount=12

[AAR.oner]

luciferburns --


1) the MZ-M200 records in numerous formats, depending on what you set it to -- Linear PCM, ATRAC, ATRAC3, ATRAC3Plus

2) Linear PCM is lossless, any form of ATRAC compression is lossy -- so a recording made on the MZ-M200 would most certainly be allowed, so long as it was recorded in Linear PCM mode

3) MiniDisc technology did not "change after our ban", other than becoming an even more outdated recording format, eventually going completely obsolete in either 2010 or 2011


as stated repeatedly for years -- TTD has not banned MiniDisc recordings, its banned LOSSY ATRAC recordings...its not the recorder thats the issue, it the recording format -- you could record with an SD744t, one fo the finest field recorders in the business, and if you recorded in mp3 format instead of Linear PCM it wouldn't be allowed either!

as for posting a Spectrum Analysis using Audition [formerly CEP] to indicate whether a recording is lossy or not -- no its not the only program out there, although its one of the better ones for Windows platform in the inexpensive range [yes thats considered inexpensive in the audio recording realm]...personally, i use iZotope's Ozone Masterin plug-in with Ableton Live, which has excellent functionality



however you already posted screenshots of a recording in Lossy/Lossless Forum using CoolEdit's Spectrum Analysis tool, so:

1) you do have the program & know how to do this
2) i would assume you know what recording format you used, but if not no worries -- just turn the SA to Color Mode [not B&W] and zoom in til approx 2sec worth of music is displayed in the window...screen capture a couple of different 2sec sections of music for us to compare....or if that makes no sense, follow instructions below




for others who don't have Audion/CEP, no problem!
you don't have to do the SA yerself, simply upload a 5-10 sec section of yer recording [mid song is best, when all instruments are playing at normal level] to one of the numerous file sharing sites out there, post a link to it and one of the regs around here will analyze for you :thumbsup

[JackDog]

What i really think happened is that the technology has changed in Minidisc recorders since your ban in 2008, and you just don't want to admit you've made a mistake.
Instead it seems you want me to jump thru "hoops" to prove otherwise.

What I really think happened is that the technology Lucifer burns owns is outdated, and he just doesn't want to admit he made a mistake when he bought it. Instead it seems he wants to jump through hoops to "prove" that he didn't make a mistake.

Free tip for Lucifer burns: You can get a used Edirol R-09 for around $50 on eBay. Buy one and throw away your minidisc recorder.

[Lucifer burns]

Alright, thank you for ALL responding!!
i will do more research and i will download that link, but now i think i do have the answer i was looking for.
I really appreciate the help & clarity in the matter.
It can be a bit confusing.


P.S. The only reason i chose the Hi-MD recorder over a digital recorder is my "oldschool" way of thinking.
I like the fact that when using Analog tape/DAT/Minidisc, you had an actually "Master" you could go back to over and over if needed.
I'm still trying to learn all this new computer stuff.
With a digital recorder, once you transfer the music to you computer you better hope you don't lose it or worse have a hard drive crash(I know a few people this has happened to)there goes you "master".
But yes, it now seems everything will be obsolete soon, DAT is as dead as Minidisc now??

[AAR.oner]

yup DAT is dead too, i still have a bunch takin up space in a closet floor :lol:

[paddington]

You don't need DAT.
Fuck DAT.
DAT's a cumbersome way to record, these days.
If it's all you have, DAT's ok, but you should find something better than DAT.

[dcbullet]

Is dat true?

[jabulon]

... With a digital recorder, once you transfer the music to you computer you better hope you don't lose it or worse have a hard drive crash(I know a few people this has happened to)there goes you "master". ...
That's why it's advisable to always make a back up of the stuff you care about (like masters, photo's etc.)

[paddington]

simply buy a 1TB usb drive to copy your stuff to about once a month or when you do a big project. Less than $100 these days.


MUCH less likely to fail than a CDR.

[tonebloke]

I'm learning here!:thumbsup

[co9ol]

Is dat true?

:clap:

[GRC]

Would the OP call this an 'unnecessary' CDR step?

"Recording Lineage
Sony Mono Cassette Recorder with built-in mic -> Cassette(M)

Playback Lineage
Cassette(M) -> Alesis Masterlink @ 44.1kHz, 16-bit (track splits, level adjustment, fades) -> CDR -> EAC to wav, TLH to flac "

???

[Audioarchivist]

Would the OP call this an 'unnecessary' CDR step?

"Recording Lineage
Sony Mono Cassette Recorder with built-in mic -> Cassette(M)

Playback Lineage
Cassette(M) -> Alesis Masterlink @ 44.1kHz, 16-bit (track splits, level adjustment, fades) -> CDR -> EAC to wav, TLH to flac "

???

I'm not a mod (and I don't even play one on T.V., either!) but I'd say it depends on a few mitigating circumstances...
I know in my own experience that a few of my earliest transfers of my own master tapes were done on a borrowed computer, and the original data of the master .wav files was deleted by the computer's owner. All I have of those transfers are "master" audio CD-r's, and I've shared some of those here.
Perfectly acceptable.
I would say if a recording is a master and it's coming from a taper as an audio CD-r that it is not only "legal" lineage, but that it might be necessary for the reason above (legacy master transfer to CD-r) or the tapers that transfer straight to a standalone CD burner.
Now, if this master transfer you're talking about was made yesterday, and they're deliberately burning to CD-r and re-extracting the files right next to the original .wav files and they still have access to those original non-CD-r'd files, then they're just being dumb to burn the files to audio CD-r's for no reason...
So, more details of the circumstances of how and why those files are coming from CD-r can make them good to go. What kind of timeline are we talking about between the tape to CD-r transfer and the EAC extraction? Is there any chance to get the master .wav files pre-CD-r? Does the taper / trader have the necessary knowledge to do this right, or do we have to take what we can get from them because they don't know how to do it any other way and they'll stop sharing with you / us if we make them change?

[GRC]

So, more details of the circumstances of how and why those files are coming from CD-r can make them good to go. What kind of timeline are we talking about between the tape to CD-r transfer and the EAC extraction?

Assuming you're talking directly about the lineage I quoted, I don't see what difference a timeline makes, unless you're suggesting that the data on the CDR will decay before the EAC transfer....

Is there any chance to get the master .wav files pre-CD-r?

Not from this lineage, as they don't exist as .wav prior to making the CDR

Does the taper / trader have the necessary knowledge to do this right, or do we have to take what we can get from them because they don't know how to do it any other way and they'll stop sharing with you / us if we make them change?

Tell me what 'necessary knowledge' you feel is missing, and I'll tell you if I have it. And yes, that lineage is from a show that I uploaded.

[Audioarchivist]

Assuming you're talking directly about the lineage I quoted, I don't see what difference a timeline makes, unless you're suggesting that the data on the CDR will decay before the EAC transfer....

Not from this lineage, as they don't exist as .wav prior to making the CDR

Tell me what 'necessary knowledge' you feel is missing, and I'll tell you if I have it. And yes, that lineage is from a show that I uploaded.

OK, after a Google search that I didn't do earlier, the Alesis Masterlink is a standalone hard disk recorder that spits out CD-r's as the finished product.... I didn't realize that and thought it was just an audio interface for a computer and they burned an audio CD-r from the computer for their storage purposes, but that's not the case, is it?

So, the transfer has been done outside of the computer realm on standalone audio equipment and then ripped to the computer to share. Fine. They don't have the knowledge or ability to go straight into the computer but prefer to do it on an oldschool unit... That looks acceptable! I still wouldn't call it the "best" way to get audio shared (no hi-res files this way!) but it works. A standalone transfer to an outboard CD burner means a CD-r / EAC extraction is totally necessary!

Technically with this unit, though, the files DO exist as .wav files before the CD-r is burned, as it records to an internal hard drive so you can edit and master the recording inside the unit (much like you can do with a computer) and then burn your edited and finalized CD. Since the unit can record at 24/96, I wonder if you can export the files directly from the hard drive in the unit and bypass the CD-r step? Perhaps it might be unnecessary after all?

[GRC]

OK, after a Google search that I didn't do earlier, the Alesis Masterlink is a standalone hard disk recorder that spits out CD-r's as the finished product....

Yup.

That looks acceptable!

I still wouldn't call it the "best" way to get audio shared (no hi-res files this way!) but it works.

Disagree. Look at the spec for the Alesis, it goes to 24/96 if I want it to.

A standalone transfer to an outboard CD burner means a CD-r / EAC extraction is totally necessary!

Yes.

Technically with this unit, though, the files DO exist as .wav files before the CD-r is burned, as it records to an internal hard drive so you can edit and master the recording inside the unit (much like you can do with a computer) and then burn your edited and finalized CD. Since the unit can record at 24/96, I wonder if you can export the files directly from the hard drive in the unit and bypass the CD-r step? Perhaps it might be unnecessary after all?

There's no means to access the files on the HDD other than by spitting out a CDR, either as a redbook CD, or as a set of .AIFF files, at whatever resolution has been committed to the HDD. Audio recorded at 24/96 outputs a 24/96 AIFF to the CDR.

I'm not convinced it stores them on the HDD as .WAV files anyway. It uses its own proprietary operating system, and even taking the HDD out of the machine, and connecting to a PC, it's unreadable by a windows machine.

I fully anticipate that some reader's response, possibly yours, will be - why not feed the audio direct to a computer and bypass the Masterlink?

My response would be - why should I? Is there anything inherently wrong with doing it this way? The Alesis was designed as a pro-grade piece of studio kit, it's widely quoted that the DA and AD converters are amongst the best in the biz, so I'd have to hunt around for a soundcard that matched them ....

And then there's the practical consideration of - all computer upstairs, hifi (with all sources & media) downstairs.

[AAR.oner]

yer setup, due to quality AD/DA converters, offers little or no problems

unfortunately, the vast majority of folks don't have access to pro gear, and are using a standalone that cost em $80, which can introduce a helluva lot of errors! there is no set in stone answer, as it depends on the gear used in every step of the chain




also, burning the PCM files [.aiff on Macs, .wav on Windows] as data & trading that way is of little concern, its when burned as a redbook Audio CD where extraction is required -- this is where errors occur & should thus be avoided when at all possible

[diggrd]

So this is the only program on the market that can tell us when a Minidisc recording made after 1/1/2008 is lossy or not??

Cool Edit Pro 2.x / Adobe Audition

This not a cheap program and i did not see a "free trial version" available.


https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitlement/index.cfm?pid=4485850&e=cs2%5Fdownloads

look here once you log in to an adobe account.

[Audioarchivist]

There's no means to access the files on the HDD other than by spitting out a CDR, either as a redbook CD, or as a set of .AIFF files, at whatever resolution has been committed to the HDD. Audio recorded at 24/96 outputs a 24/96 AIFF to the CDR.

I'm not convinced it stores them on the HDD as .WAV files anyway. It uses its own proprietary operating system, and even taking the HDD out of the machine, and connecting to a PC, it's unreadable by a windows machine.

I fully anticipate that some reader's response, possibly yours, will be - why not feed the audio direct to a computer and bypass the Masterlink?

My response would be - why should I? Is there anything inherently wrong with doing it this way? The Alesis was designed as a pro-grade piece of studio kit, it's widely quoted that the DA and AD converters are amongst the best in the biz, so I'd have to hunt around for a soundcard that matched them ....

And then there's the practical consideration of - all computer upstairs, hifi (with all sources & media) downstairs.
I said it's not the best because it outputs to CDR as a redbook audio 16/44.1 in your lineage. It would be better if you could output the 24/96 aiff files (basically the same as wav files for this discussion) as data CDR's it would be better than the unnecessary EAC extraction. Redbook audio CD's are written differently than data CD-r's and are much more prone to errors than a data disk so that would be much better, plus you could share in hi-res with the data disk output. Whatever the machine's proprietary internal operating system is, if it's recording lossless 24 bit 96 khz internally and you can get those files out of the machine somehow, the redbook is kind of unnecessary...

[GRC]

Yes, but that would introduce a sample rate and bit rate conversion in order to share them as 16/44 - which is what I reckon most folks here, and at DaD, would want.

Which would you say is worse - taking analogue and converting to 16/44 at the outset, and keeping that resolution constant to the FLAC stage, or converting to 24/96 at the outset, creating track splits, fades, outputting AIFF files in 24/96, then converting to 16/44?

Yes, I know in an ideal world it would be great to work with 24/96 all the time, but it would (a) limit the number of projects I could work at on the HDD - 24/96 occupies more HDD real-estate than 16/44, and would (b) roughly quadruple the number of CDRs I'd need - 80 mins on a single redbook equates to around 4 or 5 discs written as 24/96 AIFFs

I've committed a number of 'special' FM items to 24/96 for archiving, but for the vast majority of AUD shows ..... no.

[Audioarchivist]

Yes, but that would introduce a sample rate and bit rate conversion in order to share them as 16/44 - which is what I reckon most folks here, and at DaD, would want.

Which would you say is worse - taking analogue and converting to 16/44 at the outset, and keeping that resolution constant to the FLAC stage, or converting to 24/96 at the outset, creating track splits, fades, outputting AIFF files in 24/96, then converting to 16/44?

Yes, I know in an ideal world it would be great to work with 24/96 all the time, but it would (a) limit the number of projects I could work at on the HDD - 24/96 occupies more HDD real-estate than 16/44, and would (b) roughly quadruple the number of CDRs I'd need - 80 mins on a single redbook equates to around 4 or 5 discs written as 24/96 AIFFs

I've committed a number of 'special' FM items to 24/96 for archiving, but for the vast majority of AUD shows ..... no.

Well, then, don't record at hi res and just do it at 16/44.1 to the unit's internal hard drive and burn a data CD-r you can take to a computer to read without doing the redbook audio CD-r / EAC extraction step. If you DON'T have to do an audio CD-r with this unit, then why do it?

If the intent is solely to have a redbook CD, and there is no editing or processing needed for the files then capturing at 16/44.1 will suit those specific set of needs. If you have to do ANY post-processing to the files (raise levels, do fades, EQ, etc...) then most definitely it's still better to capture at 24/96 and process in hi res and then downsample and dither to 16/44.1 resolution....

I agree that a lot of folks haven't quite picked up yet on the concept of hi-res files, but I do believe that in the long run as hard drives grow larger and computers get even more powerful and bandwidth expands yet again that 24/96 will one day be considered "low resolution" and 16/44.1 will be looked at with the dread of an eMPty3 today! I'd rather have it in as high a bitrate as I can, now, instead of looking back with regret that I didn't capture it as good as I could have....

So, count me with the people that wish you WOULD use as full resolution as possible....

[GRC]

Admire and appreciate your enthusiasm, but;

"just do it at 16/44.1 to the unit's internal hard drive and burn a data CD-r you can take to a computer to read without doing the redbook audio CD-r / EAC extraction step. If you DON'T have to do an audio CD-r with this unit, then why do it?"

Yes, that would be better if the sole purpose was to render data files for upload, and perhaps one day, when a suitable file replay/streaming system is a practical option, that might be the way to go, but, at present, I want to upload, but I also want to be able to listen to what I've generated from the Alesis (since I'm trying to avoid replaying the source tapes), and for the time being, at least, that has to be redbook CDs. It's either that or generate two discs, one data disc for uploading, and another redbook for listening, and that brings me back to the doubling of CD blank purchases, and storage/filing considerations.

A data disc would only be replayable on the Alesis or via a computer.

[Audioarchivist]

Admire and appreciate your enthusiasm, but;

"just do it at 16/44.1 to the unit's internal hard drive and burn a data CD-r you can take to a computer to read without doing the redbook audio CD-r / EAC extraction step. If you DON'T have to do an audio CD-r with this unit, then why do it?"

Yes, that would be better if the sole purpose was to render data files for upload, and perhaps one day, when a suitable file replay/streaming system is a practical option, that might be the way to go, but, at present, I want to upload, but I also want to be able to listen to what I've generated from the Alesis (since I'm trying to avoid replaying the source tapes), and for the time being, at least, that has to be redbook CDs. It's either that or generate two discs, one data disc for uploading, and another redbook for listening, and that brings me back to the doubling of CD blank purchases, and storage/filing considerations.

A data disc would only be replayable on the Alesis or via a computer.

You could buy a CD-RW for the data disc. Use once and erase and re-use...

[GRC]

You could buy a CD-RW for the data disc. Use once and erase and re-use...

There's a thought.