| Author |
Message |
wkearney99
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sun Jul 10, 2005 9:41 pm Post subject:
Re: CD Music Format |
|
|
| Quote: | I want to burn music cd's using my PC that
will play on any cd player (car, boom box, hoe stereo etc.) What format do
I
want to use
|
If you want a plain old CD then you can burn one at up to 74 minutes worth
of sound. Some players will support up to 80 minutes. These are just audio
files and can come from any source. WAV at 44khz is ideal but even a 64k
mp3 file can be converted onto an audio CD (but will still sound crappy...)
Most CD recorders come with an audio burning program. That and programs
like ITunes include burning capability. You could use it without even
having an iPod or buying any online songs.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
I love Edsels
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jul 10, 2005 10:17 pm Post subject:
Re: CD Music Format |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:41:54 -0400, "wkearney99"
<wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I want to burn music cd's using my PC that
will play on any cd player (car, boom box, hoe stereo etc.) What format do
I
want to use
If you want a plain old CD then you can burn one at up to 74 minutes worth
of sound. Some players will support up to 80 minutes. These are just audio
files and can come from any source. WAV at 44khz is ideal but even a 64k
mp3 file can be converted onto an audio CD (but will still sound crappy...)
Most CD recorders come with an audio burning program. That and programs
like ITunes include burning capability. You could use it without even
having an iPod or buying any online songs.
|
I use a freeware burner called "Deep Burner" and it works for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Steinfeld
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:08 am Post subject:
Re: CD Music Format |
|
|
(Top posting on purpose)
Look, y'all:
A couple of you think that I'm a pedant. Hell, no.
I've done technical writing. So, I'm damn careful to ensure (note: not
"insure:" think!) that what I say is clear and tight; I work to make
what I write as easy as possible for the reader to understand. That's
why I get pissed off when I see the apostrophe used for plurals, and
especially when people who should know better make statements that the
misuse is correct.
The reason why it's wrong is because it makes some people think that you
mean possessive -- to hell with the rules: misusing the apostrophe
confuses the reader: slam-dunk! That's the reason behind my post.
English is a confusing language because the rules aren't consistent --
one reason for this is that England was invaded at times by folks who
spoke different languages -- all of which wound up in the same stewpot.
(more below)
Ron Hardin wrote:
| Quote: | Todd H. wrote:
CD's is correct. Acronyms take the apostrophe to prevent you from
trying to pronounce it as a word, serving as a separator.
|
B f-----g S!
| Quote: | Actually, the experts can't come to complete agreement on what's
correct, and the consensus tends to change over time... which is why
it's so dicey for folks to get their panties in a bunch over such
things. In matters of grammar, it's a good idea to check 3 or 4
sources before espousing something as absolute. For instance,
Wikipedia has an entry, for instance that hints at what Richard is
taking as 100% correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe_(mark)
But, we humans do like to point out what they deem as mistakes. After
all, people love being right, and the quickest way to be right without
the trouble of original thought is to point out a little something
that's wrong. Just as I did here ;-). LOL...
|
As I wrote above, my attitude about this comes directly from the needs
of my work; the needs of my work are not to satisfy pedants, but to
satisfy the needs of my reader. I work to eliminate obfuscation -- to
ensure that the reader knows the information exactly and clearly. This
is really important when, for instance, we're writing about the innards
of radiation therapy machines -- and here, confusing language could
result in a patient being microwaved to death.
I also happen to think that when I'm writing a software manual, that the
reader deserves the benefit of clear desription. There's an awful lot of
awful documentation out there (but not written by me). One can write
precisely and humanely at the same time, and I like this type of
writing. It used to be the house style of Eastman Kodak -- perhaps the
best technical writing I've ever read. Folksy. Goes down real easy. Not
cutesy latter-day computer doc. Just nice, friendly, midwestern English.
The way that they used to talk at Radio Moscow!
| Quote: |
There are descriptive grammars, that is, careful studies of what people
actually do, and you can be an expert on that. In descriptive grammar,
CDs is growing in usage, and I don't know what's happening to CD's.
Certainly you can't write "dot your i's" without the apostrophe, so the
apostrophe separator function as plural can't die out.
There are no experts on what the usage ought to be when there's
a disagreement, though you might want to copy somebody who impresses
you otherwise in style; or notice that most people regard something
as ungrammatical, so your style will be interpreted.
Fowler wrote a Modern English Usage chiefly by getting readers to
care about the language enough to recognize why you might want to
do things one way rather than the other.
Grammar in schools is to give children a good start doing things
the way most people do them in standard English. They can vary
from that when they get the hang of the language.
|
I never could do grammar in the classroom. I'm known as a good writer,
and it's all been intuitive. However, I'm a straight-shooter when it
comes to clarity. That is, unless I wanna mis-Dubbyaficate on poipose.
Richard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cirejcon
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:51 am Post subject:
Re: CD Music Format |
|
|
Richard Steinfeld wrote:
| Quote: | (Top posting on purpose)
Look, y'all:
A couple of you think that I'm a pedant. Hell, no.
I've done technical writing. So, I'm damn careful to ensure (note: not
"insure:" think!) that what I say is clear and tight; I work to make
what I write as easy as possible for the reader to understand. That's
why I get pissed off when I see the apostrophe used for plurals, and
especially when people who should know better make statements that the
misuse is correct.
The reason why it's wrong is because it makes some people think that you
mean possessive -- to hell with the rules: misusing the apostrophe
confuses the reader: slam-dunk!
|
Only if you can explain:
- What you believed the sentence meant (in context) when
interpreting "CD's" as a possessive
- What the &#^&$% this has to do with "rec.audio.misc"
For the record, I also do plenty of technical writing, with lots
of acronyms, and I consistently use an apostrophe for the plural. My
justification is that it's becoming common to mix case in acronyms,
so "CD's" would distinguish the plural of "CD" from "CDs", which
might well be a separate acronym for something entirely different.
That said, I would never correct anyone who did it the other way,
as long as the meaning was clear, because life is too short
for such useless pedantry, particularly when the rules are far
from clear cut.
-jc
| Quote: | That's the reason behind my post.
English is a confusing language because the rules aren't consistent --
one reason for this is that England was invaded at times by folks who
spoke different languages -- all of which wound up in the same stewpot.
(more below)
Ron Hardin wrote:
Todd H. wrote:
CD's is correct. Acronyms take the apostrophe to prevent you from
trying to pronounce it as a word, serving as a separator.
B f-----g S!
Actually, the experts can't come to complete agreement on what's
correct, and the consensus tends to change over time... which is why
it's so dicey for folks to get their panties in a bunch over such
things. In matters of grammar, it's a good idea to check 3 or 4
sources before espousing something as absolute. For instance,
Wikipedia has an entry, for instance that hints at what Richard is
taking as 100% correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe_(mark)
But, we humans do like to point out what they deem as mistakes. After
all, people love being right, and the quickest way to be right without
the trouble of original thought is to point out a little something
that's wrong. Just as I did here ;-). LOL...
As I wrote above, my attitude about this comes directly from the needs
of my work; the needs of my work are not to satisfy pedants, but to
satisfy the needs of my reader. I work to eliminate obfuscation -- to
ensure that the reader knows the information exactly and clearly. This
is really important when, for instance, we're writing about the innards
of radiation therapy machines -- and here, confusing language could
result in a patient being microwaved to death.
I also happen to think that when I'm writing a software manual, that the
reader deserves the benefit of clear desription. There's an awful lot of
awful documentation out there (but not written by me). One can write
precisely and humanely at the same time, and I like this type of
writing. It used to be the house style of Eastman Kodak -- perhaps the
best technical writing I've ever read. Folksy. Goes down real easy. Not
cutesy latter-day computer doc. Just nice, friendly, midwestern English.
The way that they used to talk at Radio Moscow!
There are descriptive grammars, that is, careful studies of what people
actually do, and you can be an expert on that. In descriptive grammar,
CDs is growing in usage, and I don't know what's happening to CD's.
Certainly you can't write "dot your i's" without the apostrophe, so the
apostrophe separator function as plural can't die out.
There are no experts on what the usage ought to be when there's
a disagreement, though you might want to copy somebody who impresses
you otherwise in style; or notice that most people regard something
as ungrammatical, so your style will be interpreted.
Fowler wrote a Modern English Usage chiefly by getting readers to
care about the language enough to recognize why you might want to
do things one way rather than the other.
Grammar in schools is to give children a good start doing things
the way most people do them in standard English. They can vary
from that when they get the hang of the language.
I never could do grammar in the classroom. I'm known as a good writer,
and it's all been intuitive. However, I'm a straight-shooter when it
comes to clarity. That is, unless I wanna mis-Dubbyaficate on poipose.
Richard |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Codifus
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:24 pm Post subject:
Re: CD Music Format |
|
|
Todd H. wrote:
| Quote: | bmiawmb@toddh.net (Todd H.) writes:
"pak" <eckerpw@yahoo.com> writes:
Not sure if this is the right group for this question but.........
I realize this may be an often repeated and tired question but can't find a
definitive answer so here goes. I want to burn music cd's using my PC that
will play on any cd player (car, boom box, hoe stereo etc.) What format do I
want to use and what is the best "free" program to use.
Any CD Mastering program that burns CD-Audio format does this for you
automatically.
For instance, in one popular program when you go to burn a disk and
create a layout, you poke a radio button to determine whether it'll be
o a CD Audio disk,
o a data disk, or
o an mp3 audio disk.
Each has a different layout/structure format.
To maximize compatibility with various players, generaly, the slower
you burn the CD (e.g. 4x), the more laser power is used by the burner,
and the better things will read on a wider variety of CD audio
players. Some manufacturers' burners have specific features to help
with this (e.g. Plextor VariRec). But in my experience, with name
brand CD-R media, and burning at 4x, I don't have problems with
reading in any CD players no matter how cheap.
Best Regards,
Wait a minute, aren't an MP3 audio disk AND the data disk the same |
thing? When I create MP3 disks, I simply create a data disk and copy MP3
files to it. That disk can contain MP3 files, Word documents, html files
etc.
CD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Todd H.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:21 am Post subject:
Re: CD Music Format |
|
|
Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> writes:
| Quote: | Wait a minute, aren't an MP3 audio disk AND the data disk the same
thing? When I create MP3 disks, I simply create a data disk and copy
MP3 files to it. That disk can contain MP3 files, Word documents, html
files etc.
|
You are correct. mp3 disks can be thought of somewhat as a subformat
of cd-r data disks. As you've noticed, you can certainly burn a data
disk that will play in an mp3 capable cd player.
However, for simplicity and to eliminate errors, some CD Mastering
software (Roxio comes to mind) treat mp3 cd's and data cd's in
different modes. In mp3 cd creation mode, the file selector only lets
you choose mp3 files ot put on the disk, for instance.
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http://www.toddh.net/
X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/
/ \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Codifus
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Jul 26, 2005 2:35 am Post subject:
Re: CD Music Format |
|
|
wkearney99 wrote:
| Quote: | I want to burn music cd's using my PC that
will play on any cd player (car, boom box, hoe stereo etc.) What format do
I
want to use
If you want a plain old CD then you can burn one at up to 74 minutes worth
of sound. Some players will support up to 80 minutes. These are just audio
files and can come from any source. WAV at 44khz is ideal but even a 64k
mp3 file can be converted onto an audio CD (but will still sound crappy...)
Most CD recorders come with an audio burning program. That and programs
like ITunes include burning capability. You could use it without even
having an iPod or buying any online songs.
To be most compatible with everything out there, stick with 650 MB or 74 |
Minute CDs. The 700 MB/80 min CDs tend to bring up more compatibility
issues.
CD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in