If anyone has a copy of "10,000 Hz Legend" (Air), you will find all the tracks start about a second in. I actually don't mind this when I'm cueing as I listen (I can always use the time slider on Foobar), but it must be a real bind for anyone trying to casually rip individual tracks .

And owners of the CD still have reasonably accutate indexes to skip to, not that much of a prob., surely?

You want to rip individual tracks? You'll have to rip the whole album as a wav and edit your own cues in. A bit of work involved, but you want them, yes?

I think I approve.

R.

This Air album ripped correctly for me; everything is split correctly. Behavior will depend on your CD ripping mechanism, and if you used a ripping tool with offset correction.

There could also be another master of the CD that has different/bad track marks. Having poorly positioned tracks is more common than you think...

Rant alert!!!

Copy protection in any form is evil. Copy protection is communism. RIAA dictates what you listen to. Boycott any type of copy protection.

Sorry, I had to get it off my system

Seriously, if anything it's very unrelated to communism.

Copy protections inevitably create an environment where corporations have more rights than consumers in terms of fair use. Neither corporations, consumers, or ownership really exist in communism.

I've been having a lot of problems with the DualDisc Ben Folds "Songs for Silverman" When I try to rip it in EAC .95.03 secure cache disabled c2 disabled with PX712 I can't rip all the tracks. AS soon as it starts on a track ,the red error graph starts lighting up. It gets progressively worse towards the end of the album. I've managed to get all ,but the last track. I'm having no luck. I've tried turning off auto-start ,using native TOC, pressing shift when i insert the disc. I must have tried 10 times with test copy on just that track. I tried with the newest version of Plextools too without luck. (by the way when it reports the amount of errors in PT ,is that errors that were corrected? it was up to about 9000 on that track 11) The crazy thing is I did rip it on my ibook with max. No problems at all. I'm not to sure about the method that program uses though. Any ideas. Or does anyone know what type of copy protection that Dualdisc uses?

What hwppens if you use Test And Copy mode in EAC?

Copy protection exists to protect the rights of the authors of the material and more importantly the owner of the licensed property.

If more consumers would exercise their right to "Fair Use" legally, instead of trying to make the misguided argument that Fair Use extends to unlimited copy rights or P2P distribution, then copy protection methods that you see would not be necessary. If the copy protection does not interfere with the legal fair use and does not interfere with quality of audio, I am not opposed, as long as that protection is not misrepresented. Enough with this - this thread is not about the morals of protection and it's not about aiding piracy of copyrighted materials!

Most DualDisc releases do not use protection. Also note that DualDisc is a DVD, but not a CD, and cannot be called a CD since the CD layer is too thin to meet RedBook audio specifications. This may cause a problem, and DualDiscs are labeled as not working in certain CD players. The one I tried did not work correctly in my car. It is also physically thicker and heavier than a normal disc, which might put extra stress on the player. The long-term effect of such is yet to be determined. High-end audio CD transports (Onkyo/Marantz/KG) recommend not playing DualDisc.

Due to this non-standard disc geometry, the actual pits of DualDisc are larger to help the CD player laser focus on them, since they are of "incorrect" specification. I also believe I read a different material than regular discs to try to compensate as well. This gives the CD layer less storage space - 58 minutes or so if I remember correctly.

These changes often mean it's more important to get the data on there, and often there is not room for copy protection. Copy protection that can cause discs to be more difficult to read anyway (at least that which involves sector trickery or invalidating/corrupting checksums/subchannels [ie. K2A, CopyControl, etc.]) and most labels will not be willing produce discs with multiple incompatibiles as they try to ensure maximum compatibility and reduce returns!

The short answer to the question is that your Plextor probably just does not like this disc, but the iBook does. The "Max" software seems to be an implementation of the cdparanoia system, as well.

As an aside, I have found that the mastering of the CD layer on DualDiscs is often not up to par with other traditional but quality CD releases. They seem more interested in the "high-definition" DVD audio instead. The CD layer seems to be a "#2" priority and often "optimized" for car or "background" play -- LOUD volume and compressed dynamics.

Regarding the Air album, I own it, and it copies correctly. Please check your offset correction as was suggested, and investigate further via http://www.accuraterip.com/ or similar.

Hope this helps.

Edit 1: Spelling.
Edit 2: Searching for DualDisc problems on Google shows 124,000 interesting hits.

I think (provided that one is from America) he wanted to point out that copy protection is the most evil thing in the world a human can imagine ;-)

To rockfan When I did test copy the first time ,I got every track but 3 and 11. Second time I got the 3rd and no 11. Haven't got that track as of yet with EAC. On the tracks that did rip correctly , all the CRCs matched. The last track the disc spins forever and the red error graph goes all the way through.

TRNSZ Thanks for your reply. Dualdisc were using a form of copy-protection called mediamax ,but as far as I know now they don't anymore. There is a class action lawsuit over its use on certain discs. on the Sonymusic site were I bought this DualDisc there is a link that list the albums covered for the mediamax and the recent root-kit thing. I emailed sonymusic about exchanging it for the more expensive actual CD DVD deluxe set with same content. I would like to be able to play the music I pay for on the player I like. If I would of known that this is not a real CD and all this BS would happen ,I'd never have purchased it. I never will again either(DualDisc) Maybe they shouldn't label the disc CD on the one side if it isn't. They don't have the CD logo ,but that is pretty misleading.
heres a link about the mediamax http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/cd3/

You are definitly right about the Quality being low. I looked at the graph in audacity. There is clipping everywhere here is a link http://www.flickr.com/photos/13005804@N00/112846985/
Thanks for the heads up. Wow , I didn't know They were doing it like that!

Nothing personal, but you obviously have a serious lack of imagination and/or live in a very isolated little bubble.

LOL

This is correct DualDisc's do not use copy protection. The DualDisc was invented as "failsafe" between the "socialist" owner and the "fascist" RIAA to put it into perspetive for you , but seriously no the Redbook specification doesn't apply to the DualDisc spec. The industry as I have said before had a good idea, as there is no way in hell the general consumer was ever going to be interested in 5.1 mix, unless they were enthusiats or Audiophiles.




This is why the DMCA was invented for that purpose. Without going off topic I would partly blame the consumers and the industry in a sense, they all act like children.

I meant to reply earlier to this, but things came up. Anyway, you might want to check out the "real" CD version. I've found Ben Folds' recordings are often "odd". I do not like the distortion and the placement of the bass guitar, at least in their older recordings that I've heard (1995-1996). They are often "loud" but I've never bothered to check to see what is clipping. If it's that distorted bass that clips, that might not be bad at all, unless the whole album is "squashed" and the piano and vocals often clip as well. Just the presence of some clipping does not immediately indicate poor mastering or disc quality.

On the other hand, I will stand by my original statement that most DualDisc CD-side recordings are not of the high-quality you would expect -- but they might make up for this with their low cost, depending on the quality of the special features included. Most DualDisc DVD sides, while containing audio of better quality, do not go out of their way to provide true "audiophile" quality. Usually just better attention to mixing and mastering of upsampled digital recordings (24/48 usually) or analog masters using the same mixing style as a regular CD, but not downsampled to 16/44 before pressing. The sonic improvement, however, would be minimal. The difference is "in the mix".

To really check out the treatment of differeing formats, I'd propose we do a more in-depth investigation using a known "standard" reference recording available in many formats.

I'd say "Dire Straits - Brothers In Arms" from 1985 would be fantastic. This is widely considered a near-flawless production, an early example of superior all-digital (DDD) recording technique, and has been released in many different incarnations:

1) Warner Brothers' Original Pressing release from 1985.
2) WEA International Remaster from 1999 / Warner Remaster from 2000. (same, apparently)
3) Vertigo/Mercury UK Remaster from 1996. (need more info)
4) Mercury SACD/HDCD Hybrid Remaster from 2005.
5) JVC/Japan Audiophile XRCD2 CD Remaster from 2005(?).
6) Warner Brothers' DualDisc DVD-A/CD 20th Aniv. Remaster from 2005.

I hope I got them correct since it's sometimes hard to find complete release information. It would be great to know how the DualDisc compares to the others, especially the XRCD release, which is known to be excellent. It's also commonly known the 2000 remaster was LOUD and a general non-improvement.

The difficultly really comes into play when you consider that the SACD/HDCD hybrid, when played on a non-SACD non-HDCD player would technically read only random data in the LSB (the 16th bit), rendering a 15-bit recording, and would likely translate to negative ~6dB SNR difference. Hopefully that is non-audible on most consumer non-HDCD/non-SACD equipment!

Simply put, to get a CD and KNOW that it was produced with the utmost care to mixing/mastering/remastering, you have no real choice but to purchase from one of the 'special' labels, such as Telarc, Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs (MFSL UDCD/UltraDiscs), JVC Japan (XRCD). There are others that cater to genres like experimental and jazz. When buying mainstream music, I've noticed general low quality with EMI and Virgin.

I wonder what pressure (or threats?) the record labels put on the artist that results in such terrible post-production.

</rant>

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I didn't know that it matters what freq.. are being clipped.(that makes sense that very low freq would be less noticeable) I guess what they say about a little knowledge being dangerous applies in this case. I read an article I think called" the destruction of dynamic range"edit Here it is http://www.mindspring.com/~mrichter/dynamics/dynamics.htmThe author had graphs from various cds starting in the 80's and ending up now with the most clipping. I actually sent back the DualDisc. The "bad" Mastering was really the icing on the cake for me. I was more concerned with not being able to rip it in EAC or not being able to play it in any player I would like. The article gave me the sense that if there was any clipping ,it was totally unneeded. That recording co. just do it to try to make albums louder on air. The way he presented it ,the average cd in the late 80s or early 90's had absolutely no clipping and to have it would be washing a new car with sandpaper. (that wasn't said ,that was my interpretation) Do you have a different view , as to why the cds are mastered with this kind of clipping? I'll have to check if it is just the bass being clipped. thanks again for the reply. I did order the normal cd/dvd to replace it. I just started listening to Ben Folds a couple months ago. I don't have every album ,but I'll see if I can verify what you said about the earlier albums.

I agree that such "copy protection" is simply sloppy mastering, and as such is rather annoying. Still I would prefer it to real copy protection schemes that introduce intentional errors on the disc, like later versions of Cactus DataShield do.

This is true and for the most part why I have always enjoyed 80's recordings. I would say that from 95' on the average dynamic range for most industry albums kept shrinking considerable, until we reached the apex of shitty mastering and clipping that we get today. This also includes hard-limiting at 6 dB, etc.

When I mention "bass" I mean as in bass guitar. Distortion on that instrument may be intentional, and I doubt if it's only the bass that clips that it may be an error in the mastering. It certaintly is part of the "loudness war". The clipped effect may not be audible in some situations, but it has drawbacks, especially on the high-end of the spectrum -- clipped highs can cause damage to tweeters, which are often not as "resiliant" as a subwoofer.

For more discussion of clipping and high levels, I recommend Bob Katz' articles on this subject. He believes that part of the problem is that the scale on most studio meters can cause confusion for many untrained or improperly trained "masterers". Be sure to read this article as it's the best (imho) article on the loudness war. It gives many good insights.

He also has a very interesting list of well-mastered CD's here, but this is somewhat subjective, as you can never do a proper (ABX) test against the source materials. Regardless, his book "Mastering Audio: the art and science" should be a required read for anyone that calls themselves a "mastering technician" or engineer.

I also doubt that this era of highly compressed mastering is done to get radio airplay. On a modern FM station, the EQ, muti-band compression, and limiting is done automatically in real-time. You probably think that FM sounds "bad" until you tune to a good FM station broadcasting classical music. Try it one day, you'll notice the difference. This is because most FM stations want to "stand out" (just like annoying TV commercials) and they try to push the level as much as is allowed, while classical stations do not have such childish competitions. A "hot" CD plays really bad on FM as it's effectively being processed twice.

I believe that bad CD mastering is, in the end, due to two major reasons:

a) intentionally or unintentionally, to push consumers away from the CD format into new formats such as SACD or DVD-A, which are often easier for engineers to work with (no resampling needed for final stage for the final master/mixdown, discrete channels available so no need apply a technique such as DPLII, etc.) while also allowing better (copy-)protection/DRM solutions to the labels.

b) the ubiquity of in-car systems and cheap earbuds used by runners and joggers. The days of the consumer putting an LP (or CD) in his living room system and sitting back to enjoy the music in a pristine environemnt is largely gone. People listen in noisy environments with highly sub-optimal equipment. Maintaing a huge dynamic range makes the disc less suitable for where the majority of listeners will play it. Try to play almost any well mastered (Linn, Telarc, etc.) classical disc in your car while driving with the convertible top down.

While there may be exceptions to this, ie. MFSL/UDCD-666 Nirvana: Nevermind, but that is still a "hot" disc. All of this probably just points to the quality of music going downhill as the years go by, and rather than being impressed by an artists sonic or musical qualities, kids today are drawn in by ridiculous marketing, manufactured image, and things that have nothing to do with the music at all.

Sadly, the actual music is just not that important anymore, when it comes to large labels and record companies selling music. =(

With regards to copy protection being communism:

Far from it. Copy protection is a form of fascism.