Praise Whistlers Abroad
http://praisewhistlers.org/forum/

CD duplication verses replication
http://praisewhistlers.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1072
Page 1 of 1

Author:  foothillsOH [ Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:09 am ]
Post subject:  CD duplication verses replication

Hi to all those who have either had a CD recorded or plan to.

Evening Rose, my group that I am in... is in the finalizing process of getting the editing done.

It started out as a simple plan.
Get CD recorded
Get Royalties paid
Go into production.

Our recording engeneer suggested that we get the master CD replicated rather duplicated. He states that it puts out a better product.

However, the cost is a lot more and we would have to order more CDs than the original plan of 300 CDs.

So by ordering more, we would have to pay more in royalties and also invest in having more CDs copied.

The original plan was that we would not have to pull out of our pockets to get this project done. Sigh...

So my question. What would you suggest?
I reckon the difference from what I have been told.

Is to duplicate a CD is like burning off a CD from a Computer.
To replicate a CD is like having each CD cut and the quality is supposed to be better.

From what I understood to have the master and each CD that was burned off from the master would still have good sound quality. It is when you burn off from a burn off to another burn off is when the quality deminishes.

Help!

Laura

Author:  Tommy [ Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:16 am ]
Post subject: 

A copy of a copy of a copy does not seem like it would be right. I would look in to it some more and find out if that is what they are going to do.
Or if they are putting you on for a few more dollars. Seems more easy to burn from only one good one.

Author:  Blackhawk [ Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:18 am ]
Post subject: 

Personally I'd be happy with duplicate. My ears can't tell the difference.

Author:  foothillsOH [ Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:22 am ]
Post subject: 

Tommy wrote:
A copy of a copy of a copy does not seem like it would be right. I would look in to it some more and find out if that is what they are going to do.
Or if they are putting you on for a few more dollars. Seems more easy to burn from only one good one.


I did not mean a copy from a copy from a copy. I was only implying that I realize that to burn a copy from a copy would diminish the quality of a CD.

However, If you use the master to duplicate each CD. Then the quality should be as good as the master?????

It is where I question. Would it be necessary to have each CD replicated and is the quality very close to the same as a duplicated CD?

I guess I should have clarified that more in my original post.

Laura

Author:  Adrian [ Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:04 am ]
Post subject: 

The experts will be along later.

Author:  viejomc [ Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:16 am ]
Post subject: 

A burned CD is a burned CD, no difference in a copy. I have a CD/DVD duplicator that will make 5 copies at a time. It takes a digital image of the original and produces an exact copy. But it is burned by a laser into the surface of the disk. A glass master is used to replicate CDs/DVDs. They are pressed into the surface material, not burned. I don't think there is any increase in sound quality, however the CD or DVD may last longer and is not as prone to corruption due to scratches or environmental stresses.

A digital recording is just that, nothing but 0s and 1s. Unlike a cassette tape or reel to reel, nothing from the media itself is transferred to the final sound output because it is optical.

I would be interested in how you go about paying the royalties for copyrighted materal. There have been a lot of songs that I would like to have recorded, but do not want a law suit.

Author:  Judy K [ Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:23 am ]
Post subject: 

Not an expert ....

Duplicating off the master is cheaper, is still good quality, and you can order a smaller number. It's your first CD. What's the size of your target audience? What type of audio systems will most of them be using? It may be that only the best systems will pick up any difference in CDs replicated or CDs duplicated. If it's possible ask for one of each as a sample to judge the quality difference for yourself.

Of course, I don't really know what the best choices are. The board sound gurus will have some intelligent answers for you.

:D

Well -- looks like Gary beat me to the punch while I was typing. 8)

Author:  Adrian [ Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:02 pm ]
Post subject: 

Judy K wrote:
Not an expert ....

Duplicating off the master is cheaper, is still good quality, and you can order a smaller number. It's your first CD. What's the size of your target audience? What type of audio systems will most of them be using? It may be that only the best systems will pick up any difference in CDs replicated or CDs duplicated. If it's possible ask for one of each as a sample to judge the quality difference for yourself.

Of course, I don't really know what the best choices are. The board sound gurus will have some intelligent answers for you.

:D

Well -- looks like Gary beat me to the punch while I was typing. 8)


Hold on. YOU sound like a guru!

Author:  Judy K [ Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:54 am ]
Post subject: 

Adrian wrote:
Hold on. YOU sound like a guru!


Nah ... There is an old saying around my neck of the woods:

    If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance
    Baffle 'em with bull
Which one I 'fulfilled' is open to interpretation ... :mrgreen:

Author:  KittyR [ Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:41 am ]
Post subject: 

Hello Laura,

You've already gotten some good information here but I'd like to add my opinion as well. I agree with everything said, just adding more.

Like Blackhawk says, your ears can detect virtually no difference between a burned CD and a replicated one.

The reason duplication is called "burning" a CD is because a laser literally burns a black spot onto the blank media. This is how your computer burns a CD. But in a replicated CD, there are bumps on a glass master, which then stamps actual holes into the blank media, which is then embedded into the CD material. Look at each under a microscope. :)

If you leave a burned CD out in very bright sunlight, it will probably not play right any longer because the sun can darken the ink in the CD material. Not so with a replicated CD, so the replicated one can take a lot more abuse and still play fine.

In my opinion, it's all going to depend on how many you're planning on having made:

  1. The start-up cost for replication is high because a glass master must be made in a clean-room environment. But the per-unit cost after that is really cheap.
  2. The start-up cost for duplication is low because no master is made, but the burning process costs more per unit.
If you're getting less than 800, duplication is more cost-effective (but there is a very small risk of it not playing in some older CD players because they have trouble reading the burn as oppsed to the holes). If you're getting 1,100 done, replication is more cost-effective. If you're getting anywhere in-between those two, it will probably work out to be very closely the same in overall cost.

Kitty

Author:  foothillsOH [ Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:38 am ]
Post subject: 

Thanks to all,

This has been very informative.

Now when I get with the gals in the group this weekend I will be able to contribute to the conversation. We have some finalizing to discuss.

The replication does sound like a better plan for the preservation of the CD. It just 1,100 copies. Yikes!

NOw I would like to try leaving a CD out in the Sunlight and see what happens. Does that also mean leaving CDs in a hot car. Will that damage them as well?

And I have always wanted to invest in a microscope...

NO really....

Really I do...



Quote:
I would be interested in how you go about paying the royalties for copyrighted materal. There have been a lot of songs that I would like to have recorded, but do not want a law suit.


We are going through

http://harryfox.com

Hope that helps.

Thanks again all,

Laura

Author:  KittyR [ Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:36 am ]
Post subject: 

foothillsOH wrote:
Does that also mean leaving CDs in a hot car. Will that damage them as well?

I think it's the direct sunlight, not the heat.

Even though it's cold here in Colorado, the brilliant sunlight can make it so hot inside a car that any videotapes, CD cases, or other hard plastics left on the dashboard will warp. :shock:

Author:  Adrian [ Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:39 am ]
Post subject: 

Judy K wrote:
Adrian wrote:
Hold on. YOU sound like a guru!


Nah ... There is an old saying around my neck of the woods:

    If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance
    Baffle 'em with bull
Which one I 'fulfilled' is open to interpretation ... :mrgreen:


The first I think!

Author:  KittyR [ Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: duplication verses replication

foothillsOH wrote:
From what I understood to have the master and each CD that was burned off from the master would still have good sound quality. It is when you burn off from a burn off to another burn off is when the quality deminishes.

Nope. It's digital information - just 0's and 1's. You could make a copy of a copy of a copy a hundred times, and you'd still have the same 0's and 1's, same digital information, same playback. The only difference is cost of production and durability of each type of media.

I'd say if you're only expecting to distribute 300, it's a clear-cut choice. if you think you're going to distribute 700 or more, then it's not such an easy decision.

Kitty

Author:  Revles [ Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:08 pm ]
Post subject: 

Evening Rose'...that is an unusual name for a group.....is there a clue in there about the type of music you play and songs you sing :?: What instruments are played in the group and how would you define you music....Love to know...Best wishes with the CD...Les.

Author:  foothillsOH [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:09 am ]
Post subject: 

Revles wrote:
Evening Rose'...that is an unusual name for a group.....is there a clue in there about the type of music you play and songs you sing :?: What instruments are played in the group and how would you define you music....Love to know...Best wishes with the CD...Les.


Hi Les,

When Evening Rose started out it was a duet. I am very keen on acronyms. So I based the name by our last names. Elder and Rutherford.
Well since then we picked up another member, Her last name Wolfinger, Considered renaming the group Wild Evening Rose, however, found that to be too risque. So stuck with original Name. Also, Kathy's last name had changed since then as well.

You can find out more info about the group through this link

http://eveningroseonline.com

Thanks for the best wishes.

Alas, me thinks we will go for the replication.
Heard the semi-final mix. We "the group" are very well pleased with it.
Just a couple little glitches that can be easily fixed. So it is good to go...

Laura

Author:  Adrian [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 10:54 am ]
Post subject: 

Laura

Is there any chance that you can have music clips on your website? I know it would help people like me.

Author:  foothillsOH [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

Adrian wrote:
Laura

Is there any chance that you can have music clips on your website? I know it would help people like me.


I am working on that. Need to consult the Webmaster.
I did creat a few clips for the Praise Whistlers, however perhaps I did not get them transfered correctly. Have not heard from Kitty as of yet.

These clips were from the original demo.

Once production goes into full swing, there will definately be clips for folks to hear at the website.

Peace,

Laura

Author:  Judy K [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:33 pm ]
Post subject: 

Laura, your clips are in the right folder for the Praise Clips section. Kitty just may not have had time to work her magic and do whatever it is she does with them to make them easily accesible to the rest of us. I did copy the Fisher's Hornpipe to my music file to check that it works. Nice! =D> :D

Judy

Author:  foothillsOH [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:02 pm ]
Post subject: 

Judy K wrote:
Laura, your clips are in the right folder for the Praise Clips section. Kitty just may not have had time to work her magic and do whatever it is she does with them to make them easily accesible to the rest of us. I did copy the Fisher's Hornpipe to my music file to check that it works. Nice! =D> :D

Judy


\:D/ Glad it works... whew!

Ah, Gee, thanks.
Fisher's Hornpipe is one of my favorite performance ones. We did not capture the whole affect on CD.

When we perform it we get faster and faster each time.
For those Pirates of the Caribbean fans... did you notice on the second movie the fight scene in the bar at Tortuga the tune they were playing?
It tended to get faster and faster.

At one of the gigs we pulled out Pirate hats to play the tune... Alas, my hat was too small and kept on falling off.

I have a pic of my daughter somewhere wearing that hat. She looked better in it than I did.

Laura

Author:  fancypiper [in Heaven] [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

We did our first CD by burning each one from the final produced and mixed wav files. We made the mistake of putting lables on then, and this resulted in about a 1/4 failure rate. If you follow this route, I suggest a CD blank that allows an ink jet printer to print the lable directly on the CD. Apparently, the stick on lables can slide around and unbalance the CD.

Our second CD, The Old Bush, we got a company called Oasis to press them (just like the big names) and have had no returns of these at all.

No CD of any kind can stand high temps and/or sunlight, btw.

We went with CD Baby for internet distribution.

You might want to check out Star Polish as well for some hints.

Author:  kelly [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

I don't know much about this, but it seems to me that if I had the fabulous chance to make a CD with friends, I would use the best instruments I had--and I would get the best CDs produced that is possible, even if it broke me.
Just my opinion.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/