Professional Web Applications Themes

O.T. > CD-R's - Adobe Photoshop Elements

Ok, I need to burn a program for a friend to disk but all I have left is what they call a 'Picture CD-R', Memorex. Is there any difference between a regular CD-R and this so-called Picture CD-R ? it's 700MB, sayse stores up to 7000 images up to 48X speed. I'm thinking it's just an 'any use' CD-R unless someone here tells me different. Thanks...

  1. #1

    Default O.T. > CD-R's

    Ok, I need to burn a program for a friend to disk but all I have left is what they call a 'Picture CD-R', Memorex. Is there any difference between a regular CD-R and this so-called Picture CD-R ? it's 700MB, sayse stores up to 7000 images up to 48X speed. I'm thinking it's just an 'any use' CD-R unless someone here tells me different. Thanks
    Jodi Frye Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: O.T. > CD-R's

    As far as I can tell, there are only two types of recordable CDs, widely available: CD-R and Audio
    CD-R. The Picture CD you're referring is probably only a CD-R which has a better life span than
    regular CDs. On the Memorex site, it says it comes with a software to edit picture. So I'd say
    it's a regular CD-R.

    Just for the record, Audio CD-R are used in the home CD recorders, units you can connect to an
    amplifier (not a computer). I have a NAD CD recorder at home and it cannot use regular CD-R /
    CD-RWs, only those specially identified "Audio CD-R / RW" (of course, they're more expensive!)

    Memorex link : [url]http://www.memorex.com/products/category_display.php?cid=159[/url]

    Ray


    Ray Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: O.T. > CD-R's

    Thanks Ray, I really didn't think there was a difference. Note to self; buy discs !
    Jodi Frye Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: O.T. > CD-R's

    "Ray" <carbone_2000hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:17F10DB84CCD0D14CC8D547103611923in.webx.la2e afNXanI...
    > Just for the record, Audio CD-R are used in the home CD recorders, units
    you can connect to an
    > amplifier (not a computer). I have a NAD CD recorder at home and it
    cannot use regular CD-R /
    > CD-RWs, only those specially identified "Audio CD-R / RW" (of course,
    they're more expensive!)

    And as far as I know, there's not any physical difference. The only
    difference is that some sort of serial number on the "audio" discs identify
    it as such. The "audio" discs cost more, because the RIAA managed to get a
    per-disc royalty tacked onto the price of the blanks, which they of course
    enforce by requiring the home stereo burning equipment to check for the
    "audio" discs specifically.

    Pete


    Peter Duniho Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: O.T. > CD-R's



    And as far as I know, there's not any physical difference.




    Actually, "audio" discs also have a little extra headroom that is necessary to make them run in first generation cd players--not an issue unless you still have a cd player from the first five years or so after they were invented.
    Barbara Brundage Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: O.T. > CD-R's

    Barbara,

    "audio" discs also have a little extra headroom




    That's very interesting. What's "headroom?" Is is unused space at the outside edge of the disk?
    Bert
    Bert Bigelow Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: O.T. > CD-R's

    It's actually unused space at the top and bottom of the frequency bands. The early cds were created on the assumption that since you can't consciously hear those frequencies they are just wasted space, so they just chopped off the the top and bottom to allow longer recording time, which is one reason why so many early cds, especially of classical music, sound so one-dimensional.

    Anyway, really, really old cd players don't know what to do if they find data in those zones, so "audio" cds have a sort of buffer zone there to fake the void the old players look for.
    Barbara Brundage Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: O.T. > CD-R's

    "Barbara Brundage" <memberadobeforums.com> wrote in message
    news:2ccd5050.5webx.la2eafNXanI...
    > It's actually unused space at the top and bottom of the frequency
    > bands. The early cds were created on the assumption that since
    > you can't consciously hear those frequencies they are just wasted
    > space, so they just chopped off the the top and bottom to allow
    > longer recording time, which is one reason why so many early
    > cds, especially of classical music, sound so one-dimensional.
    Audio CD's store 8-bit bytes, just like regular CD's. The audio data is
    represented as a series of pairs of 16-bit samples, 44100 of these pairs for
    each second of audio.

    Frequency data is implicitly stored, in the waveform represented by the
    actual data on the CD. There is no "headroom" in the sense in which you
    describe. Digitally encoded audio can always represent, with complete
    accuracy, arbitrarily low frequencies (down to 0 Hz), and the upper limit is
    determined not by the data stored (which is just a sequence of samples) but
    the rate at which that data is to be played back (called the sampling rate,
    and with CD's that rate is 44.1Khz, as mentioned above).

    The maximum frequency that can be represented by the 44.1 Khz sampling rate
    for CD's is 22.05 Khz, in theory. In reality, it's a little less, but in
    any case, there's not any physical difference that could exist between two
    CD formats that could make any difference with respect to the range of
    frequencies that can be recorded.

    A Google search on "Nyquist" will turn up a bunch of interesting links on
    this topic.

    By the way, the size of the audio samples (16-bits for audio CD's) affects
    the signal-to-noise ratio. An approximation used in digital audio theory is
    that you get 6 dB of signal-to-noise for each bit of data per sample. So
    CD's get, in theory, 96 dB of signal-to-noise.

    My apologies in advance if this post seems confrontational. Just trying to
    get the facts straight, that's all.

    Pete


    Peter Duniho Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: O.T. > CD-R's

    Hi, Pete. Might want to have a chat with a recording engineer or two. They would disagree, at least in every studio I've ever been in. 8^)
    Barbara Brundage Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: O.T. > CD-R's

    Barbara,
    When I read your post #6, I was really confused, because, as an engineer and a music fan, I understand the CD data format and the Nyquist criteria for data sampling. I have owned a CD player since they first came out. In fact, I was composing a response in my head when I read Peter's post.
    Like Peter, I do not mean to confront you, but his excellent tutorial on digital recording theory is correct, as far as I know.
    If you could find a website or give us a reference to what you are talking about, I think we both would appreciate it.
    Bert
    Bert Bigelow Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: O.T. > CD-R's

    Gee, Bert, I was just going on what studio engineers have always told me. As I say, perhaps y'all are correct; it's just different from what I've always been told in the recording studio. Could be--there are always myths wherever you go.
    Barbara Brundage Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: O.T. > CD-R's

    "Barbara Brundage" <memberadobeforums.com> wrote in message
    news:2ccd5050.7webx.la2eafNXanI...
    > Hi, Pete. Might want to have a chat with a recording
    > engineer or two. They would disagree, at least in every
    > studio I've ever been in. 8^)
    Perhaps you misunderstood what they were saying.

    During recording, the engineer does need to be careful about the audio
    levels (amplitude, not frequency) to make sure that the volume does not
    exceed the resolution of the digital data (known as "clipping", which is
    very similar to the og version of "clipping"). In theory, they could go
    right up to the maximum levels afforded by the 16-bit sample, but in
    reality, low-end CD players sometimes don't reproduce such "maximum volume"
    samples correctly (their og components clip, and can't reproduce the
    full spectrum that the digital sample can represent).

    The fact that this difference between maximum levels in the recorded audio
    and the maximum level theoretically capable of being reproduced is called
    "headroom" makes me think that this may be where your misunderstanding comes
    from.

    To bring this back to the topic of this forum, this effect is very much like
    when you have bright areas in an image and you can't tell the difference
    between two pixels that are not actually the same color. In the visual
    realm, this usually happens when capturing the image, but it could happen at
    any step along the way, including the video card or monitor.

    In the audio realm, the effect causes kind of a "scratchy" noise to come
    through the speakers. In the visual realm, you just see a lot of white. If
    the problem is at the monitor, often just turning the brightness down on the
    monitor will let you see the difference in pixels, just as turning down the
    volume on your stereo will make the noise go away if the clipping is
    happening in the amplifier (as opposed to being in the original audio
    source).

    For more that you ever wanted to know about CD-R, look here:
    [url]http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq07.html#S7-17[/url]

    That link will actually take you directly to the discussion regarding CD-R
    blanks, but the web site in general is chock full of all sorts of
    information about CD-R that most people never need to know. :)

    Pete


    Peter Duniho Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: O.T. > CD-R's



    Perhaps you misunderstood what they were saying




    Sure, if that makes you happy. Whatever.
    Barbara Brundage Guest

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139