Analog CD copies?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Spuds, Aug 18, 2007.

  1. Spuds

    Spuds Guest

    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?
     
    Spuds, Aug 18, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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.
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Aug 18, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Spuds

    Meat Plow Guest

    On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:24:57 -0400, 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?


    Doesn't make sense does it?
     
    Meat Plow, Aug 18, 2007
    #3
  4. Spuds

    ded Guest

    "Spuds" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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?


    I haven't seen the report, but as posted they are totally inaccurate.
    Our burners and software can make bit-for-bit exact digital copies,
    unless....
    The report might have meant with copy protected disks?
    We all know of DVD's protection, and that can be defeated by software such
    as DVD Shrink etc.
    With CD's Sony once tried a copy protection technique with their "rootkit",
    (Google: "Sony, CD, Rootkit" for the full story) It caused many problems and
    Philips the co-founder with Sony of the 16 bit CD format, insisted such
    "rootkit"
    protected CD's could not be termed CD's as they didn't meet the criteria.
    Sony abandoned "rootkit".
    There is a new DRM based CD copy protection, I know the latest Dido CD is
    DRM protected, basically with this new technique they cannot be "digitally
    ripped" (Until someone inevitably produces a crack).
    All drives will have an audio output which we connect to our soundcards
    The feed to soundcard is Digitally-to-analog converted.
    In burning software such as Nero, Roxio etc, in the "create audio CD's"
    wizard there is a drop down option to create disk from "Analog" source
    which will be via soundcard and the drives audio output, Not IDE.
    The Consumer report (Got a link?) may have been talking about methods
    of recording copy protected disks such as those still in existence with
    Sony's
    now abandoned "rootkit" or the fledgling DRM technique.
     
    ded, Aug 18, 2007
    #4
  5. ded wrote:
    > "Spuds" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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?

    >
    > I haven't seen the report, but as posted they are totally inaccurate.
    > Our burners and software can make bit-for-bit exact digital copies,
    > unless....
    > The report might have meant with copy protected disks?
    > We all know of DVD's protection, and that can be defeated by software such
    > as DVD Shrink etc.
    > With CD's Sony once tried a copy protection technique with their "rootkit",
    > (Google: "Sony, CD, Rootkit" for the full story) It caused many problems and
    > Philips the co-founder with Sony of the 16 bit CD format, insisted such
    > "rootkit"
    > protected CD's could not be termed CD's as they didn't meet the criteria.
    > Sony abandoned "rootkit".
    > There is a new DRM based CD copy protection, I know the latest Dido CD is
    > DRM protected, basically with this new technique they cannot be "digitally
    > ripped" (Until someone inevitably produces a crack).
    > All drives will have an audio output which we connect to our soundcards
    > The feed to soundcard is Digitally-to-analog converted.
    > In burning software such as Nero, Roxio etc, in the "create audio CD's"
    > wizard there is a drop down option to create disk from "Analog" source
    > which will be via soundcard and the drives audio output, Not IDE.
    > The Consumer report (Got a link?) may have been talking about methods
    > of recording copy protected disks such as those still in existence with
    > Sony's
    > now abandoned "rootkit" or the fledgling DRM technique.


    Ain't no way to make an analog CD, rootkit or not. See my previous reply
    for some sarcastic comment.
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Aug 18, 2007
    #5
  6. Spuds

    ded Guest

    "Rôgêr" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > ded wrote:
    >> "Spuds" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> 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?

    >>
    >> I haven't seen the report, but as posted they are totally inaccurate.
    >> Our burners and software can make bit-for-bit exact digital copies,
    >> unless....
    >> The report might have meant with copy protected disks?
    >> We all know of DVD's protection, and that can be defeated by software
    >> such
    >> as DVD Shrink etc.
    >> With CD's Sony once tried a copy protection technique with their
    >> "rootkit",
    >> (Google: "Sony, CD, Rootkit" for the full story) It caused many problems
    >> and
    >> Philips the co-founder with Sony of the 16 bit CD format, insisted such
    >> "rootkit"
    >> protected CD's could not be termed CD's as they didn't meet the criteria.
    >> Sony abandoned "rootkit".
    >> There is a new DRM based CD copy protection, I know the latest Dido CD is
    >> DRM protected, basically with this new technique they cannot be
    >> "digitally
    >> ripped" (Until someone inevitably produces a crack).
    >> All drives will have an audio output which we connect to our soundcards
    >> The feed to soundcard is Digitally-to-analog converted.
    >> In burning software such as Nero, Roxio etc, in the "create audio CD's"
    >> wizard there is a drop down option to create disk from "Analog" source
    >> which will be via soundcard and the drives audio output, Not IDE.
    >> The Consumer report (Got a link?) may have been talking about methods
    >> of recording copy protected disks such as those still in existence with
    >> Sony's
    >> now abandoned "rootkit" or the fledgling DRM technique.

    >
    > Ain't no way to make an analog CD, rootkit or not. See my previous reply
    > for some sarcastic comment.


    I didn't say make an "analog CD", the issue is ripping digital-to-digital
    and
    if copy protected, the method to get around it is digital-to-analog(via
    soundcard
    and PCI)-to-digital. there is options in burning software, that allow to
    take an
    analog feed via soundcard and rip/convert back to a digital signal to CD
    http://www.nero.com/nero6/eng/Tutorial_Audio.html
    The copy protection such as rootkit and the newer DRM only protect the
    digital
    data, if converted to analog via soundcard the copy protection is defeated,
    that analog signal is converted back to digital during burning and is free
    of
    any copy protection. But of course going through that double conversion
    process it ain't a direct digital-to-digital rip. It is
    digital-analog-digital rip.
     
    ded, Aug 18, 2007
    #6
  7. Spuds

    Vanguard Guest

    "Spuds" wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.

    CD-ROMs are pressed or stamped much the same way as were vinyl
    records. Pits are pressed into a substrate that is then fused to the
    transparent plastic disc. The physical pit records the digital one
    and the lack of a pit is a digital zero.

    CD-R and CD-RW media do not use pits. Instead they rely on heating up
    the substrate with the laser in high-power mode to create a bubble
    (phase change) or dye variance that has a different reflectance and
    which emulates a pit. That is why CD-R[W] media is more prone to loss
    data due to heat, like leaving them in your hot car. Pits in CD-ROMs
    don't melt away. Heat will weaken the phase change material or the
    change in the dye used by CD-R[W] media to reduce the differential in
    reflectance so it is harder to detect the emulated pit.

    http://snipurl.com/1ohwz
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD-ROM#Manufacture
     
    Vanguard, Aug 18, 2007
    #7
  8. Spuds

    Old Codger Guest

    ded wrote:
    > "Rôgêr" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> ded wrote:
    >>> "Spuds" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> 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?
    >>> I haven't seen the report, but as posted they are totally inaccurate.
    >>> Our burners and software can make bit-for-bit exact digital copies,
    >>> unless....
    >>> The report might have meant with copy protected disks?
    >>> We all know of DVD's protection, and that can be defeated by software
    >>> such
    >>> as DVD Shrink etc.
    >>> With CD's Sony once tried a copy protection technique with their
    >>> "rootkit",
    >>> (Google: "Sony, CD, Rootkit" for the full story) It caused many problems
    >>> and
    >>> Philips the co-founder with Sony of the 16 bit CD format, insisted such
    >>> "rootkit"
    >>> protected CD's could not be termed CD's as they didn't meet the criteria.
    >>> Sony abandoned "rootkit".
    >>> There is a new DRM based CD copy protection, I know the latest Dido CD is
    >>> DRM protected, basically with this new technique they cannot be
    >>> "digitally
    >>> ripped" (Until someone inevitably produces a crack).
    >>> All drives will have an audio output which we connect to our soundcards
    >>> The feed to soundcard is Digitally-to-analog converted.
    >>> In burning software such as Nero, Roxio etc, in the "create audio CD's"
    >>> wizard there is a drop down option to create disk from "Analog" source
    >>> which will be via soundcard and the drives audio output, Not IDE.
    >>> The Consumer report (Got a link?) may have been talking about methods
    >>> of recording copy protected disks such as those still in existence with
    >>> Sony's
    >>> now abandoned "rootkit" or the fledgling DRM technique.

    >> Ain't no way to make an analog CD, rootkit or not. See my previous reply
    >> for some sarcastic comment.

    >
    > I didn't say make an "analog CD", the issue is ripping digital-to-digital
    > and
    > if copy protected, the method to get around it is digital-to-analog(via
    > soundcard
    > and PCI)-to-digital. there is options in burning software, that allow to
    > take an
    > analog feed via soundcard and rip/convert back to a digital signal to CD
    > http://www.nero.com/nero6/eng/Tutorial_Audio.html
    > The copy protection such as rootkit and the newer DRM only protect the
    > digital
    > data, if converted to analog via soundcard the copy protection is defeated,
    > that analog signal is converted back to digital during burning and is free
    > of
    > any copy protection. But of course going through that double conversion
    > process it ain't a direct digital-to-digital rip. It is
    > digital-analog-digital rip.


    Indeed, and copying by that method will result in some quality degradation.


    --
    Old Codger
    e-mail use reply to field

    What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
    people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
     
    Old Codger, Aug 18, 2007
    #8
  9. Spuds

    Spuds Guest

    On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:33:18 -0400, Rôgêr <> 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.
     
    Spuds, Aug 18, 2007
    #9
  10. Spuds

    ded Guest

    "Old Codger" <> wrote in message
    news:46c761b3$0$13927$...
    > ded wrote:
    >> "Rôgêr" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> ded wrote:
    >>>> "Spuds" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> 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?
    >>>> I haven't seen the report, but as posted they are totally inaccurate.
    >>>> Our burners and software can make bit-for-bit exact digital copies,
    >>>> unless....
    >>>> The report might have meant with copy protected disks?
    >>>> We all know of DVD's protection, and that can be defeated by software
    >>>> such
    >>>> as DVD Shrink etc.
    >>>> With CD's Sony once tried a copy protection technique with their
    >>>> "rootkit",
    >>>> (Google: "Sony, CD, Rootkit" for the full story) It caused many
    >>>> problems and
    >>>> Philips the co-founder with Sony of the 16 bit CD format, insisted such
    >>>> "rootkit"
    >>>> protected CD's could not be termed CD's as they didn't meet the
    >>>> criteria.
    >>>> Sony abandoned "rootkit".
    >>>> There is a new DRM based CD copy protection, I know the latest Dido CD
    >>>> is
    >>>> DRM protected, basically with this new technique they cannot be
    >>>> "digitally
    >>>> ripped" (Until someone inevitably produces a crack).
    >>>> All drives will have an audio output which we connect to our soundcards
    >>>> The feed to soundcard is Digitally-to-analog converted.
    >>>> In burning software such as Nero, Roxio etc, in the "create audio CD's"
    >>>> wizard there is a drop down option to create disk from "Analog" source
    >>>> which will be via soundcard and the drives audio output, Not IDE.
    >>>> The Consumer report (Got a link?) may have been talking about methods
    >>>> of recording copy protected disks such as those still in existence with
    >>>> Sony's
    >>>> now abandoned "rootkit" or the fledgling DRM technique.
    >>> Ain't no way to make an analog CD, rootkit or not. See my previous reply
    >>> for some sarcastic comment.

    >>
    >> I didn't say make an "analog CD", the issue is ripping digital-to-digital
    >> and
    >> if copy protected, the method to get around it is digital-to-analog(via
    >> soundcard
    >> and PCI)-to-digital. there is options in burning software, that allow to
    >> take an
    >> analog feed via soundcard and rip/convert back to a digital signal to CD
    >> http://www.nero.com/nero6/eng/Tutorial_Audio.html
    >> The copy protection such as rootkit and the newer DRM only protect the
    >> digital
    >> data, if converted to analog via soundcard the copy protection is
    >> defeated,
    >> that analog signal is converted back to digital during burning and is
    >> free of
    >> any copy protection. But of course going through that double conversion
    >> process it ain't a direct digital-to-digital rip. It is
    >> digital-analog-digital rip.

    >
    > Indeed, and copying by that method will result in some quality
    > degradation.
    >
    >

    Indeed, there is no denying that compared to a direct digital-to-digital rip
    there will be noticeable degradation and the type of process of converting
    to an analog feed for the purpose of defeating any DRM, then converting
    back to digital for burning is at the mercy of the quality of the soundcards
    conversion etc. But the issue is the supposed consumer report and what
    exactly was the context and point they were making? I was just giving
    one example of when ripping from an analog feed might be the only
    option with copy protected CD's.

    > --
    > Old Codger
    > e-mail use reply to field
    >
    > What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
    > believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
     
    ded, Aug 18, 2007
    #10
  11. Spuds

    Spuds Guest

    On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:12:21 -0500, "Vanguard" <> wrote:

    >"Spuds" wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> 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."
     
    Spuds, Aug 18, 2007
    #11
  12. Spuds

    ded Guest

    "Spuds" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    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 bollocks
     
    ded, Aug 18, 2007
    #12
  13. Spuds wrote:
    > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:33:18 -0400, Rôgêr <> 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.
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Aug 18, 2007
    #13
  14. Spuds

    thanatoid Guest

    Spuds <> wrote in
    news::

    > 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
     
    thanatoid, Aug 19, 2007
    #14
  15. Spuds

    WhzzKdd Guest

    "Spuds" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:33:18 -0400, Rôgêr <> 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?


    --
     
    WhzzKdd, Aug 19, 2007
    #15
  16. Spuds

    Spuds Guest

    On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:12:54 -0700, "WhzzKdd" <frack_this@email_is.invalid>
    wrote:

    >"Spuds" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:33:18 -0400, Rôgêr <> 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.
     
    Spuds, Aug 19, 2007
    #16
  17. Spuds

    WhzzKdd Guest

    "Spuds" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:12:54 -0700, "WhzzKdd"
    > <frack_this@email_is.invalid>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>"Spuds" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:33:18 -0400, Rôgêr <> 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>
     
    WhzzKdd, Aug 19, 2007
    #17
  18. Spuds

    Guest

    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?


    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
     
    , Aug 19, 2007
    #18
  19. Spuds

    Spuds Guest

    On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:16:03 -0700, 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?

    >
    >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.
     
    Spuds, Aug 19, 2007
    #19
  20. Spuds

    Spuds Guest

    On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:16:03 -0700, 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?

    >
    >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.."
     
    Spuds, Aug 19, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. r1_97

    Run multiple copies of browser

    r1_97, Jul 26, 2003, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,620
    Leonidas Jones
    Jul 28, 2003
  2. Matt
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    983
    Neon Knight
    Nov 9, 2005
  3. joe white

    120 day evaluation copies

    joe white, Jun 29, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,157
    Maestro
    Jul 2, 2003
  4. baljit
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    574
  5. Guest
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    450
    Guest
    Sep 30, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page