Could I use my DVD Fab Platinum to make an exact replica of a dvd-audio? or will I need different software?
On a similar topic I want to burn some normal audio CD's to DVD discs to take advantage of the larger capacity. Have good quality DVD player in car. Can this be done without any video content to the DVD disc, thus is there a way of a DVD player being able to play audio only from DVD discs. Have been able so-far to get the files onto a DVD blank via NERO and all computer based players such as Nero Showtime and Power DVD play okay, but can't get any DVD player to recognize!
I am not a big fan of Nero but what I use will make a mp3 DVD with text the same as it will a CD. It is either a format or quality thing. Computer burners have better hardware to read disks and the software is smarter to read the unexpected. You might try to play the DVD in other DCD players. If it plays in one then it is probably a quality thing.
Thanks for that. What I'm primarily interested in, is getting selected tracks from several CD's onto a DVD Rom in the same CD quality without dropping down to MP3. I realize that I can get massive amounts of MP3 onto a CD Rom and probably several thousand MP3's onto a DVD Rom, but I still find MP3's a compromise. With a good selection of CD material on a DVD Rom I can transfer the discs between my home system and the car without any quality concerns. Have succeeded so-far with getting 100+ tracks onto a DVD with "Movie Factory" and the quality is perfect, Linear PCM. Still working on some file naming or placement issues as after ripping and burning off several discs, the similar track numbering between the source CD's tends to throw the tracks around, not in the order you want and many tracks pop up time and time again. Thus I imagine I have to re-name somewhere during the process!
You are trying to make an 'audio DVD'. I do not think there is such a thing. That is why you will have trouble playing it. I guess you figure a Ferrari is slow because it can't go 1,000 MPH! What kind of sterio do you have that you You do know you will need probably need more than at least 10,000 USD to purchase a system capible of reproducing a 320 BR mp3? That will reproduce sounds 4-22,000 Hz. Here is one speaker list price of 1,399.99. That will only produce 65 -20,000 http://www.idjnow.com/StoreModules/ProductDetails.aspx/PID=TT08 You will need to add one of these Sub-Woofers to get the the base down to 22 Hz for 3,845.00 USD. Then you will need a very powerful amp to drive a sub woofer like that. Still you are not even close to reproducing a good mp3 let alone a high quality mp3. http://www.idjnow.com/StoreModules/ProductDetails.aspx/PID=TT08 You have no idea what it takes to faithfully reproduce a high quality mp3. I have one. The sheer weight of such a system would shock you. Persons helping me move the components complain because they think they are attached to the floor. The power amp has two more than 20 pound transformers. The weight of the speakers is massive because of the huge magnets needed to reproduce 4 Hz tones. We can forget the high end since by the time you can possible afford a good stereo you can't hear high notes. At between 20-25 year of age you lose the ability to hear down to 18,000 Hz. Hopefully, your system is far superior to that crappie equipment I found. Otherwise your desires would not make much sense. What good is extra quality that is actually beyond the range of human hearing when your equipment does not even come close to reproducing those tones? Have fun making your audio DVD. I am sure my ranting and raving was a waste of time.
Yes - as long as it is not watermarked. If it is watermarked you will need a player that does not honour the mark. No. That will do nicely, as the saying goes.
No What part don't you believe???? There are reasons for lossless. I have lossless archives so do not quote me saying lossless is the same as an mp3. I did not say that. What I will say is a well made mp3 CAN SOUND identical to lossless. The human hearing is not all that good. The human brain is actually pretty slow compared with any computer we have. It takes short cuts. I will even make stuff up instead of processing notes if it thinks it can predict the next note. Scientists have studied long and hard to figure out how we hear. You can’t perfectly convert a lossy format to another lossy format. The only format the converts cleanly is lossless. That is why you archive in lossless. If you have the CD, why bother? Wave files and CD files are uncompressed. One hour of silence is as big as 1 hour of complex music. Do you think you can hear the difference between a 600 meg file of silence and nothing? I don't doubt some people will contend that they can. I say good for them! Flac and Ape files are lossless compression compress but the compression has to allow extraction back to the EXACT same wave file. Simple lossy compression compress lossless and cut off high frequency tones. 320 BR mp3s cut out ultrasonic tones. Mp3s do not cut out base it takes up no space. They take up the most space. Ultrasonic tones are above the range of a young human with ‘perfect’ hearing can hear. The reason they don’t make higher BRs than 320 not because it exceeds the power of the modern computer or exceeds the collective intelligence of the world’s programmers, it is why store sound no one can hear when trying to save space. 320 is actually over kill. Buy the time you can buy a nice stereo, you can’t hear the high stuff. They have student dispersal devices that emit tones at above 18,000 Hz to disburse students. Even young adults can’t hear them. You have mosquito ring tones use by HS students. They ring at tones above 18000 Hz and no one but the students can hear them. Your hearing continues to drop off after 25. It is believe a 30 something adult with a well trained ear can’t hear the difference between 192 BR and lossless. This is without fancy compressions. With fancy compressions it is closer to 160. The advanced compressions use what the scientists learned about how we hear. Most audio can be very compressed with no loss of quality. I can give you a simple example. In the 1812 Overture you don’t hear the violins when the cannon goes off. Even though the cannon boom is loud it is a low frequency and takes up no space. The violins use up huge amounts of space. The compression removes the violins and other music you can't hear during the boom. This type of compression is not predictable. Soft string music does not compress much while R&R does great and vocals does even better. Lastly, even if you can hear a tone, if your audio equipment can’t reproduce it you are still NOT GOING TO HEAR IT! Most stereos sold today have a pitiful range because consumers are too lazy to do their homework. Some of you ought to crack a book! Hopefully, you only wanted me to waist time ranting and raving because I an an idiot. Well it worked, but I need to stop waisting time on this foolishness.
14. April 2009 @ 07:42: Quote from "MEZ" You are trying to make an 'audio DVD'. I do not think there is such a thing. That is why you will have trouble playing it. *************************************************** I think there was an "Audio DVD" standard some years back, it went away as I don't think it caught-on, as like I'm experimenting with at present, it would only play on DVD players. Many Pioneer players had it and still do. It was around the time that Sony were pushing "SACD" (I think it was called?) and was mainly just the upgraded standard being applied to certain CD releases. The difference with what I am doing (and have now successfully done) is just to use the extra capacity of DVD Rom's to compile favorite tracks off one's CD collection, AND maintain the original CD quality. More about this in another post soon. Mez by his initial post, seemed to jump very quickly to defend his thoughts and ideas on what was just a simple question from me and I think with quite an over-reaction, also noted by another member. The crux of the matter is the old saying "One persons meat is another persons poison" The type of argument used to defend his theories has as yet never be concluded, similar to the Vinyl versus CD, Digital Photo versus Film Photo's and Motion Picture Film versus the shooting of some newer movies being shot on Video. I will go out on a bit of a limb here and now and say that a significant proportion of music lovers can definitely and without doubt detect a difference in audio quality between normal CD and MP'3. Of course the equipment comes into question and again would be subject to being of a certain standard. Perhaps the old saying "You get what you pay for" comes into play. Mez, I don't know why you needed to "Rant" as you put it, as said above I only asked a simple question, based on ideas I have about what I want to do and enjoy. None of your text will change my mind about that fact.
Hi Disked. You are thinking of DVD-Audio (not Audio DVD) and there is a heck of a lot of confusion about this format. Most of it deliberately caused IMSHO but that is another long & boring discussion. DVD-Audio is the universal format that everyone still claims to be looking for, done properly. It's as cheap as DVD-Video to replicate, and can hold serious amounts of lossless audio. One of the big stumblers with it is that there is a common misconception that it requires a special player to use - this is only partly true. Properly authored, there is always a form that will play on every DVD player ever made, period. This is highly recommended by the DVD Forum as well, and it involves authoring 2 forms on one disc - exactly the same as SACD does, but without all the ultrasonic crap introduced by that format. You can use PCM (WAV, AIFF or BIN) from 16/44.1 to 24/192 in stereo, and from 16/44.1 to 24/96 in Multichannel, although going over 4.0 at 24/96 requires the mandatory use of MLP, or Meridian Lossless Packing, which is a VBR encoder that produces checked & guaranteed bit-for-bit identical output compared to the input - which is a definite bonus when you realise that you will get a saving about the same as FLAC. That content goes into the Audio_TS. Also available is a Video_TS import as well - this is the part that will play in a Video-Only player. (Aside here - there are several types of DVD player. 1 - Audio-Only. WIll only access content in the Audio_TS folder. Very rare, found mainly in car systems (Video playback is forbidden in the USA for car players). 2 - Audio/Video players - will access content in both Audio_TS & Video_TS folders (So-called "Universal" DVD players, these are very common indeed, with machines made by every major manufacturer except Sony) 3 - Video Only players - will only access content from a Video_TS folder) Additionally, you can always add ROM content too - this can be whatever floats your boat. As far as the previous rant about MP3 goes, I ain't going there. Maz can think what he likes - it is a free world. All I will say is that if you run these tests properly, instead of in some half-assed fashion, you can certainly tell the difference - providing you know what you are listening for. Once you get it, you will always hear the effects of the perceptual encoding. Why flawed? In exactly the same way that CD volume was so up & down before the CD changer. Once yo have played a disc (or a track), and then changed it & loaded the next one, your brain forgets what it just heard. The CD changer proves this as the transition time is so fast. With lossless/High Rez/MP3 comparisons, the only way to do it is to sync up all types on a DAW, with each type on a fader. Then solo between tracks whilst all re streaming - you WILL hear the difference. If you don't, you have a problem.
Thanks wilkes, good post and sorts out many facts. Yes DVD-Audio was the beast I was referring to, infact I have a couple bought many years back just to see how good they were. What I have been able to do in the last couple of days is to get approx 100 CD Wave Files onto a DVD ROM the conversion ending up as LINEAR PCM 48kHz 16bit and sounding great. This is how 2 DVD players are reading the info anyway. I imagine onto a DVD9 you could double this amount. Only problem so-far is one PC I have doesn't have enough head-room during the conversion process and screams out for more Virtual Memory, (XP). The Wave files are muliplexed into a standard DVD format, the video being very low bit-rate and throws up the track numbers. I think if there was text info on the CD that this would come up as well. With the price of DVD blanks these days, I would far prefer having some discs loaded with the amount and quality of the above, rather than (as I said before) dropping down to MP3. Sure MP3 has it's place, but not at this address.
Amen, brother! FWIW, I was able to back up the entire remastered 6-DVD-set of The Doors (audio tracks co-mingled with rare video footages) using DVD Fab.
Delightful!!! After years trying to bate someone into a good discussion about lossless vs. lossy, I have finally found a live one. First off, your criticism of me is well founded. I am a highly opinionated bastard. I tend to push my opinions on others. Guilty! In my defense, I take well founded criticism to heart and change my evil ways. However, I was accurate as far as persons who chose to listen to lossless. You aren’t hurting anyone and you are listening to perfect music. You almost sound intelligent, unless you think about what you said. You with the air of authority but haven’t cracked a book. As far as I am concerned you are both fools! Prove me wrong. Put me in my place, I dare you! We will all learn something. Posted by Disked I was not trying to defend my statements but clarify them. I correctly assumed the reader did not believe what I was saying so I wanted to make myself crystal clear. NOW I will defend my statements. Let’s see if you can do the same! What address is the right address? Digital Audio Forum, where you posted and I am responding seem like the right address to me but then I am the moron that states a well made mp3 sounds the same as lossless. Since I am discussing this with a new order of intelligence, where is the right address? Have I actually found someone that claims they can tell the difference between a 500 meg wave file of silence and nothing at all? That would be too much! What POWERFUL apparatus did you use to test the difference or are your ears so well trained that they can easily pick out lossless nothing and nothing? As I complained before, you all are empty barrels. You for one, lumped all mp3s into the same category. There are dozens of encoders and a nearly infinite number of combinations of setting within an encoder that has so many different parameters or settings. Stating all mpes sound inferior to lossless is very much like stating everyone in Mexico is stupid. It is such a sweeping statement only a total fool would use such a generality in an argument in a public forum. You should have just stayed under your rock like the rest of the people that make these sweeping generalities and are afraid to defend them. Or did you state mp3s are better for some other reason than how they sound? If you are stating that, yes, lossless is better for some purposes. I love that quote! You must be some kind of manager. You no clue what I have, what tools I use but you know what ever I did was done half assed. You must have used your new order of intellegence to know everything I did! Firstly, I thought I made my statements perfectly clear but I guess I did not. I never stated an mp3 holds the same information that lossless does. I stated that a well produced mp3 made with LAME using the highest quality settings will SOUND the same to humans as lossless. Since you take it for granted that I do my testing in some half-assed fashion let’s take you test results. I am wondering what was the encoder, and what were the settings you used to make the mp3 you tested, and what did you test it with? What were your results? This way we can discuss meaningful facts instead of vague generalities. I doubt that you ran any tests. The chances are, if you were into audio that much we wouldn’t be having this argument. If I don’t hear back from you I rest my case! I just hope I was insulting enough to get you to respond. If you don’t answer, the readers might figure you are a know-nothing empty barrel. By the way what do you use to listen to your music? To be fair I will tell you mine. I use AR3a speakers and a kit knockoff of a Phase Linear D-500. Like me, these are old dinosaurs in every way. However, they are considered by many experts to be the finest audio components ever made. The huge drawback of the AR2as is, they require more power to warm them up that most systems sold today can produce. The power amp is pretty much a 1000 watt RMS unit that is limited to 400 watts RMS. At 400 watts it is virtually distortion free because it is so over sized for that wattage. After listening to pure clean music for over 30 years I think know what clean is. Who knows, maybe I will learn something. Lastly, if you hang in there whether you win or lose you will gain my respect, for whatever that is worth. I loathe bozos that make stupid, impossible to defend, sweeping false generalities then crawl under their rock. I hope to hear from you soon!
Again, you have jumped ever sooo quickly. Re MP3's at this address; ADDRESS meaning here in sunny AUS in this dear street, in this dear little house. Nothing to do with this forum, where discussions such as this are great. I don't need or want to enter into to and fro-ing of all the technical stuff. Allow others just to have an opinion based on what they hear through their own ears. AND that is what I will stand by. Of course there will be different classes and qualities of MP3, just as there will be ever so many systems that produce the result. From what I have heard of MP3 and that is not exhaustive, keeping music in as close to it's original state 'at this address' (note above please), is the way for ME to go. I am ever so pleased that for the few cents cost of a DVD ROM, I can have a hundred or so of selected tracks on the one little piece of plastic in the way that I want it to produce. Maybe raising this topic alone has let some other readers know that it is possible to infact do this. I'm sure others will follow on and give it a go. Last week I did not even know it was possible! Yes, I know also that perhaps the majority would still see a tremendous advantage of having several hundred tracks on the same little piece of plastic in MP3 format and at THEIR ADDRESS it will be fine.
That was a good and honest answer and I respect that. There are a few good reasons to listen to lossless. Disk space is cheap; you can buy a TB disk for under 100 USDs. Some people archive lossless and listen to lossy you skip making the lossy step. For certain things, lossless format is the only way to go. There are infinite ways to screw up audio. Lossy formats add layers of potential screw ups. Lossless is always perfect copy of your source. There are no setting to screw up. You never have artifacts in lossless formats. Most of us over kill on the quality we listen to. Last I heard that was not a crime. Making an mp3 CD instead of an audio DVD was a good suggestion. I am sure you will have an easier time finding something that will play an MP3 CD than an Audio DVD. Unless the source was HD you should be able to tell the difference. If you say things that are just not true, expect to be challenged. If built right, an mp3 will sound the same as lossless. This is widely accepted in far more technically advanced forums than this one. I can't say that is universally accepted. Some persons believe only vinyl produces quality sound. If you read up on Psychoacoustic Modeling, the study of how your brain uses what your ears hear, you will find out our brain doesn't use a good deal of what the ear hears. The brain doesn't use the extra 'goodies' stored on vinyl. It does process the pops and hisses. Even with disk washers, you alter the vinyl ever so slightly each time you use it. Before I go on, some vinyl sounds better than CDs. This is probably not because of the media. Some vinyl was 'pressed loud'. The music is not raw but enhanced. You can do the same with an equalizer. Some persons compare an enhansed vinal with a non-ehhansed CD and say the vinyl sounds better so vinyl is a better media. That really proves nothing. The brain is slow compared with a computer. It resorts to short cuts to keep up. Apparently, you brain prefers to make some notes up disregarding what your ears hear. There must be millions of hours of serious research that went into the study of just Psychoacoustic Modeling let alone the complete research needed to create a mp3. I think it is quite flippant to discount the work as foolishness just because you don't want to spend the effort to understand what they were doing. Peace and enjoy! As an after thought, I will post audio quality info. If you wish to get an over view of mp3 quality check it out. I will provide links to non watered down sources so you can see my sources. You might want to check it out. I will try to make it both informative and easy to follow.
