Re: Current Advisability of going beyond 74 min on CD
- From: "Steve King" <steveSPAMBLOCK@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:35:43 -0600
"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fl4d7g$1ol$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Frank Stearns <franks.pacifier.com@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| >I've got a project that's going to top out at about 78-79 minutes. Both
the client
| >and I don't really want to go to a two CD set. (This will be a short 200
unit run
| >burned onto CDr.)
|
| For a pressed CD I don't recommend it. But ask the pressing plant the
| customer is going to use. The issue has to do with how tight a pitch
| the glass mastering system can produce, and how flat the CD can be
| manufactured out near the edge. Most plants won't guarantee them.
|
| But for a CD-R... well, you might as well since the guys doing the
| replication are probably using the tight pitch 80 minute blanks anyway.
|
| >All my CDrs these days are 80 min, and hopefully there aren't many of the
really
| >old CD players around any more that might have a problem with >74 min
disks...
|
| They ALL might have a problem. The thing is, the groove pitch is tighter
| with the 80 minute disc than with the 74 minute ones, and it's tighter
| with the 74 minute ones than the 63 minute ones. All other things being
| equal, the error rate will be lower with the more relaxed pitch.
|
| And the thing is, the error rate will increase as the disc ages. So you
| may have discs that read fine now, but a decade down the road don't read
| so well. The error issues are cumulative, and maybe everything will be
| fine and maybe it won't be, and you never know until it happens.
|
| But the truth is, the duplication guys are probably going to be doing
| them quick and fast on 80 minute blanks without error monitoring, so
| you'll get what you get no matter how much you put on.
|
| >But, am curious as to others' experience deviating from Redbook and into
no-man's
| >land between the 74 and 80 minute boundaries. (I even have a Telarc
commercial
| >release or two that are >77 minutes.)
|
| Red Book allows a variety of different groove pitches, with 74 being the
| tightest. Most of the glass mastering systems gave you several choices,
| with the tightest ones violating the spec.
|
| But if you're issuing on CD-R, you can't really claim to be meeting all
| the Red Book specifications anyway, so just grin and bear it. The issues
| between pressings and CD-Rs are pretty different.
| --scott
| --
| "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
I distribute several thousand CD-R discs each year to corporate clients.
I'm told that there is almost 100% listenership to the discs, because they
contain information vital to the conduct of the listeners' jobs. For the
last 3-4 years all duplicates have been on 80-minute CD-Rs. Program time
has ranged from 50 minutes to 79 1/2 minutes. I have had less than 10
unplayable discs returned for replacement in the 6 years I've been doing
this. Several of those were physically cracked probably in transit by U.S.
mail. The program material is primarily spoken word with music transitions.
The odd skip of audio content is unlikely to be reported, so these results
may not be the full story. Based on my experience I would have no
hesitation going ahead with the project you describe.
Steve King
.
- References:
- Current Advisability of going beyond 74 min on CD
- From: Frank Stearns
- Re: Current Advisability of going beyond 74 min on CD
- From: Scott Dorsey
- Current Advisability of going beyond 74 min on CD
- Prev by Date: Re: How Good do Great Converters sound with Mid-Level Mic Pres?
- Next by Date: Re: How Good do Great Converters sound with Mid-Level Mic Pres?
- Previous by thread: Re: Current Advisability of going beyond 74 min on CD
- Next by thread: Re: Current Advisability of going beyond 74 min on CD
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
