Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Analog CD copies?

Reply
Thread Tools

Analog CD copies?

 
 
Spuds
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2007
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:12:21 -0500, "Vanguard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"Spuds" wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> Picked up the September issue of Consumers Reports the other day.
>> Ran
>> across this statement by CR staff:
>>
>> "When you burn a copy of a digital CD, the copy is analog, not
>> digital. And
>> copies might not be as high quality as originals, although the
>> average ear
>> won't be able to hear the difference."
>>
>> Am I missing something here? How can a digital operation like
>> copying a
>> CD be deemed analog? And why would a copy not be as high a quality
>> as the
>> original? Are these guys out to lunch?

>
>
>Oh yeah, like we're supposed to believe a quote taken out of context.


>Either provide the URL (if non-customers can see the article) or
>provide the context of the article (copying it might violate
>copyright). They may have used an analogy to "analog" that they then
>used in the single sentence you supposedly quoted. Or the author
>doesn't have a clue how CDs are manufactured or how they are burned by
>end-user equipment. Impossible to tell from a single statement taken
>out of context.


The statement is self-sufficient. Nothing was taken out of context. For your
edification, here is the entire exchange. It is a response to a letter by a
reader. I trust you won't turn me in for copyright violation <snirk>:

The letter:
"The June article, "Going Digital", was right on target except for one
statement: "Once you've burned a CD, you can't make digital copies of it." I
did this more than a year ago on my Sony RCD-W500C"

CR's answer:
"When you burn a copy of a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And
copies might not be as high quality as originals, although the average ear
won't be able to hear the difference."

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ded
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2007

"Spuds" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

Snip
> The letter:
> "The June article, "Going Digital", was right on target except for one
> statement: "Once you've burned a CD, you can't make digital copies of it."
> I
> did this more than a year ago on my Sony RCD-W500C"
>


Of course you can copy a copy, what they seem to have got confused
with are the legal issues, Stateside (But not here in UK) you are allowed
to make one copy of a disk for back up purposes without infringing
copyright. But as if the RIAA are going to be knocking on individuals
doors and asking "are you making digital copies of digital copies"


> CR's answer:
> "When you burn a copy of a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital.
> And
> copies might not be as high quality as originals, although the average ear
> won't be able to hear the difference."
>


CR are talking *******s


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2007
Spuds wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:33:18 -0400, Rgr <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Spuds wrote:
>>> Picked up the September issue of Consumers Reports the other day. Ran
>>> across this statement by CR staff:
>>>
>>> "When you burn a copy of a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And
>>> copies might not be as high quality as originals, although the average ear
>>> won't be able to hear the difference."
>>>
>>> Am I missing something here? How can a digital operation like copying a
>>> CD be deemed analog? And why would a copy not be as high a quality as the
>>> original? Are these guys out to lunch?

>> On Consumer Report's computer, the laser burns grooves into the disk
>> that have little ridges and valleys that correspond the sound wave. They
>> can only be played back on 78 RPM turntables, or in the case of
>> cylinders, on a hand crank Victrola.

>
> That would account for the big horn coming off the side of the burner.


That's normally referred to as the "amplifier". Sometimes you have to
get the damn dog out of the way to put your ear up close, but you can
hear the sound quite clearly.
 
Reply With Quote
 
thanatoid
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2007
Spuds <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Picked up the September issue of Consumers Reports the
> other day. Ran
> across this statement by CR staff:
>
> "When you burn a copy of a digital CD, the copy is analog,
> not digital. And copies might not be as high quality as
> originals, although the average ear won't be able to hear
> the difference."
>
> Am I missing something here? How can a digital
> operation like copying a
> CD be deemed analog? And why would a copy not be as high a
> quality as the original? Are these guys out to lunch?


Over the years I have found CR to be a *very* peculiar
publication. About 75% of the time my (and my acquaintances)
experience has been largely the opposite of CR's tests. And I
find their methods a little absurd. Either you want the cheapest
there is or you want the best there is. SOMETIMES they are the
same, but to mix the 2 criteria together (with about 5 others,
equally contradictory) to arrive at the final rating is a little
strange.

One time I remember they MIGHT have gotten something right was
when they gave an extremely high rating to GoldStar video tape
(or some other GS product). That was a WHILE ago, when Korea was
just starting to take Japan's place, and as some of you may
know, GoldStar is now Samsung, a brand I personally consider
very good, certainly compared to the alternatives (i.e. China).
So they might have been on the target then, although I
personally have never used GD/Samsung videotape so cannot make a
personal experience comment.

As to the obvious idiocy of their comments quoted above, I would
not be surprised if they are saying what they MUST know is not
true because either a) they, being (I believe) gov't funded (and
if not, toeing the line anyway), are trying to discourage you
from "being bad" or b) operate in a reality where all laws of
the land are strictly and 100% followed and therefore the mere
*possibility* of someone making an exact digital copy of a CD is
non-existent. I guess a) and b) are pretty much the same thing.

Or they are simply nuts. Some of the criteria they use for their
judgments have always seemed a little insane to me, like I
mentioned earlier.



--
"This is not nuclear. This is just a test."
- illyria
 
Reply With Quote
 
WhzzKdd
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2007
"Spuds" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:33:18 -0400, Rgr <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Spuds wrote:
>>> Picked up the September issue of Consumers Reports the other day. Ran
>>> across this statement by CR staff:
>>>
>>> "When you burn a copy of a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital.
>>> And
>>> copies might not be as high quality as originals, although the average
>>> ear
>>> won't be able to hear the difference."
>>>
>>> Am I missing something here? How can a digital operation like copying a
>>> CD be deemed analog? And why would a copy not be as high a quality as
>>> the
>>> original? Are these guys out to lunch?

>>
>>On Consumer Report's computer, the laser burns grooves into the disk
>>that have little ridges and valleys that correspond the sound wave. They
>>can only be played back on 78 RPM turntables, or in the case of
>>cylinders, on a hand crank Victrola.

>
> That would account for the big horn coming off the side of the burner.



Dang! I thought it was a spitoon. Who's coming over to clean up the mess?


--



 
Reply With Quote
 
Spuds
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2007
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:12:54 -0700, "WhzzKdd" <frack_this@email_is.invalid>
wrote:

>"Spuds" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:33:18 -0400, Rgr <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>Spuds wrote:
>>>> Picked up the September issue of Consumers Reports the other day. Ran
>>>> across this statement by CR staff:
>>>>
>>>> "When you burn a copy of a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital.
>>>> And
>>>> copies might not be as high quality as originals, although the average
>>>> ear
>>>> won't be able to hear the difference."
>>>>
>>>> Am I missing something here? How can a digital operation like copying a
>>>> CD be deemed analog? And why would a copy not be as high a quality as
>>>> the
>>>> original? Are these guys out to lunch?
>>>
>>>On Consumer Report's computer, the laser burns grooves into the disk
>>>that have little ridges and valleys that correspond the sound wave. They
>>>can only be played back on 78 RPM turntables, or in the case of
>>>cylinders, on a hand crank Victrola.

>>
>> That would account for the big horn coming off the side of the burner.

>
>
>Dang! I thought it was a spitoon. Who's coming over to clean up the mess?


That's what the previously mentioned dog is for.
 
Reply With Quote
 
WhzzKdd
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2007
"Spuds" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:12:54 -0700, "WhzzKdd"
> <frack_this@email_is.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>"Spuds" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:33:18 -0400, Rgr <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Spuds wrote:
>>>>> Picked up the September issue of Consumers Reports the other day. Ran
>>>>> across this statement by CR staff:
>>>>>
>>>>> "When you burn a copy of a digital CD, the copy is analog, not
>>>>> digital.
>>>>> And
>>>>> copies might not be as high quality as originals, although the average
>>>>> ear
>>>>> won't be able to hear the difference."
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I missing something here? How can a digital operation like copying
>>>>> a
>>>>> CD be deemed analog? And why would a copy not be as high a quality as
>>>>> the
>>>>> original? Are these guys out to lunch?
>>>>
>>>>On Consumer Report's computer, the laser burns grooves into the disk
>>>>that have little ridges and valleys that correspond the sound wave. They
>>>>can only be played back on 78 RPM turntables, or in the case of
>>>>cylinders, on a hand crank Victrola.
>>>
>>> That would account for the big horn coming off the side of the burner.

>>
>>
>>Dang! I thought it was a spitoon. Who's coming over to clean up the mess?

>
> That's what the previously mentioned dog is for.



LOL! That'd actually work at my house - one guy is a little befuddled -
doggie alzheimer's or Tourets or something. Barks randomly at the weirdest
times, lays on the carpet and licks it for hours. A spitoon would make his
day <g>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2007
Spuds <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Picked up the September issue of Consumers Reports the other day. Ran
>across this statement by CR staff:
>
>"When you burn a copy of a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And
>copies might not be as high quality as originals, although the average ear
>won't be able to hear the difference."
>
> Am I missing something here?


The update...
http://paradoks.livejournal.com/

Googled the first sentence

"This was at the end of a review for CD recorders such as the TEAC
GF-350 or the Sony RCD-W500C"

And just justifies what most others have posted.
--

All of Calvin & Hobbes
http://www.marcellosendos.ch/comics/ch/index.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Spuds
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2007
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:16:03 -0700, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> Spuds <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Picked up the September issue of Consumers Reports the other day. Ran
>>across this statement by CR staff:
>>
>>"When you burn a copy of a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And
>>copies might not be as high quality as originals, although the average ear
>>won't be able to hear the difference."
>>
>> Am I missing something here?

>
>The update...
>http://paradoks.livejournal.com/
>
>Googled the first sentence
>
>"This was at the end of a review for CD recorders such as the TEAC
>GF-350 or the Sony RCD-W500C"
>
>And just justifies what most others have posted.


Hey thanks. Cleared that up.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Spuds
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-19-2007
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:16:03 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> Spuds <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Picked up the September issue of Consumers Reports the other day. Ran
>>across this statement by CR staff:
>>
>>"When you burn a copy of a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And
>>copies might not be as high quality as originals, although the average ear
>>won't be able to hear the difference."
>>
>> Am I missing something here?

>
>The update...
>http://paradoks.livejournal.com/
>
>Googled the first sentence
>
>"This was at the end of a review for CD recorders such as the TEAC
>GF-350 or the Sony RCD-W500C"
>
>And just justifies what most others have posted.


As an afterthought, and based on the confusion it generated for others as
well, it would've made infinitely more sense if CR had've prefixed the
paragraph with "With these devices.."
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Matrox DualHead2Go Analog Edition Review Silverstrand Front Page News 0 11-30-2005 01:03 AM
TerraTec Cinergy Hybrid USB XS DVB-T/Analog TV Tuner Silverstrand Front Page News 0 10-03-2005 10:39 PM
Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC Designer for contract in Germany Wolfgang Fallot-Burghardt VHDL 0 03-27-2005 08:01 AM
digital analog conversion Veronica Matthews VHDL 6 11-27-2004 10:38 PM
Analog clock control? John Young ASP .Net 0 05-08-2004 01:50 PM



Advertisments