[ROSSOred]

Hey so i've ripped my CDs to .wavs Now what i want to do is to rip the .wavs to CDs as some have since been sold off. Only problem is a full album rips well over 700mb. How comes the .wav is larger than it was on the CD it was copied from? And how do i copy it to CD?

Thanks

 

[rickcr42]

700 mb does not sound close to possible for a single CD

60mb more like

 

[ROSSOred]

Quote:

Originally posted by rickcr42 700 mb does not sound close to possible for a single CD 60mb more like

I dont understand what you mean??

 

[rickcr42]

heh ,just looked at my post and it seems i dropped a zero

I have my blank phillips CD-R80 discs in my hand right now and they do 700mb 80 min)

Never had a problem with the phillips blanks so maybe you could try them

BTW-PM open for now

 

[Duxxy]

only one way to find out... try and burn it

 

[Glassman]

Quote:

Originally posted by ROSSOred Hey so i've ripped my CDs to .wavs Now what i want to do is to rip the .wavs to CDs as some have since been sold off. Only problem is a full album rips well over 700mb. How comes the .wav is larger than it was on the CD it was copied from? And how do i copy it to CD? Thanks

Audio CD uses more than 2300 bytes per sector, while data CD uses 2048 bytes, the rest being additional error recovery data, that's why wavs are 'larger' than tracks on audio CD..

 

[ROSSOred]

Quote:

Originally posted by Glassman Audio CD uses more than 2300 bytes per sector, while data CD uses 2048 bytes, the rest being additional error recovery data, that's why wavs are 'larger' than tracks on audio CD..

Fantastic thanks glassman!

 

[rickcr42]

great post glasman , I should have thought of that (but didn't

)

BTW-unless i am copying a damged or error prone CD i find it MUCH faster and easier to use NERO over EAC

 

[Stephonovich]

So that explains it... I've always thought it was just overburning. And actually, rick, I have several CDs that are at the bleeding edge of 700MB/80 minutes.

As for Nero vs. EAC, yeah, Nero is a ton easier, especially for people like me who have their collection ripped to FLAC files. With nxMyFla.dll, it'll decompress them into WAV on the fly for you. However, it doesn't correct offsets in your burner. EAC does. Makes no noticeable difference in sound, I know, but I do it anyway. I'm a freak that way

(-:Stephonovich

 

[Distroyed]

What kind of offsets? What do these offsets do?

 

[Stephonovich]

When your player (Foobar, WMP, what-have-you) requests a song to be played, your CD drive selects the correct position on the CD, aka a track. (tracks don't physically exist, it's one continuous data stream) However, due to various things, your drive is not positioned perfectly at the start of the track. It may be a few samples (remember, a CD has 44,100 samples per second of audio) off. People have compiled databases of drives and their own offsets, or how far off the drive is. Using EAC (only program I know of that allows you to do this), you can tell it how far off your drive is, and it corrects for this when ripping or burning by telling it to move ahead or backward, whatever the case may be.

For instance, I use my burner for ripping, as I know what the offsets are. Reading is +685 samples off, writing is +6 samples off.

Now, will this make a difference? No. Don't believe anyone who tells you it will. Unless it's horribly (thousands and thousands) off, you won't be able to hear a thing. Think about it. If 44,100 samples equals one second of audio, than 685 samples equals about 1/64 of a second.

So why do I (and others) correct this? My theory is that we're all obsessive compulsive

However, it's also one more tiny step to remove any possibility of a loss of sound quality. My backups of my CDs are as perfect replicas as I can make them. And that makes me happy.

(-:Stephonovich