Music Player Network
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
JAM: Best/Worst to burn with??? #509352 02/26/04 11:49 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 80
L
Leifski Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
L
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 80
Howdy Gang!!!
I was told three years ago that using JAM to burn a CD is a good way of killing all reverb one has used. In other words, that it is not true to the mix when burning. Is this true?? Has any body else thought about this??? I have recently used the program for a mastered single and to be honest I feel that the reverbs have died a bit...
Leifski

Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with??? #509353 02/26/04 01:01 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 343
R
Ruairi O'Flaherty Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 343
Hi Leifski,

I use Jam all the time and I have never noticed any problems with it, that doesn't mean they are not there just that I haven't noticed any. I went through a brief phase of using Waveburner but the interface was such a PITA that I gave up. What was the basis of the complaints against Jam?

I'll have to try some tests my self,

cheers,
Ruairi

Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with??? #509354 02/26/04 04:49 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 161
D
DAS Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
D
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 161
I've also had no troubles.

What Jam can do is to downsample from 24 bit to 16 bit so Toast can make a music CD. It's possible that the complaint was the resulting sonic difference between the 24 bit master and the resulting 16 music CD. There can be loss of subtle detail in that process. I'd guess that's the complaint. But if you're 24 bit, you gotta get there somehow....a whole other conversation.

But as to Jam itself somehow deleting low level information like reverbs on it's own, I doubt it.

Any info on who made the complaint and what they were doing might help.


DAS
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with??? #509355 02/26/04 04:53 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 343
R
Ruairi O'Flaherty Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 343
Just to state the obvious I have never used Jam to dither down files, I do all that in Pro Tools with the Powr dither. I will try burn a file this weekend and then importing and checking with phase cancelation - of course this doesn't account for error in the cd extraction. I will also try a do a few listening tests.

To echo DAS, what was the source of this complaint?

cheers,
Ruairi

Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with??? #509356 02/26/04 06:13 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,402
where02190 Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,402
Jam is not actually a burning app, it works in conjunction with Toast for theat. Jam will convert 24 bit to 16bit for redbook compliance, but we've not experienced any issues with tonal changes, and we've been using it for several years now.

Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with??? #509357 02/26/04 06:23 PM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 649
K
kk@jamsync.com Offline
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
K
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 649
Quote:
Originally posted by where02190:
Jam is not actually a burning app, it works in conjunction with Toast for theat. Jam will convert 24 bit to 16bit for redbook compliance, but we've not experienced any issues with tonal changes, and we've been using it for several years now.
Jam 2.6 (the classic version IMO) didn't need Toast. The new version with Toast is simply awful, I think. I wouldn't trust it for audio processing, just burning. I still use 2.6 the most, although I have the current version of Toast Platinum. When my current Plextors croak, however, I'm sure I'll have to switch.


KK Proffitt
Chief Audio Engineer, JamSync, Nashville
JamSync
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with??? #509358 02/26/04 11:11 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 709
A
adebar Offline
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
A
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 709
I use Jam 2.6.2 in OS 9.2.2 without any problem and have never realized a change in sound to my 16 bit files from the HD.

I don´t use any processing in Jam like wordlenght reduction or src.

Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with??? #509359 02/28/04 02:32 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 590
dave-G Offline
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 590
Echoing what KK and adebar said, I keep a separate OS 9.2.2 startup drive in my G4 that has little else other than Jam 2.6.2 installed on it. It's a very solid app, perfectly simple, and worth braving the time-warp of going back to OS9 for.

That said, are any of you running it in "classic mode" from within Jaguar or Panther? I've always been too scared (and busy) to try, but it might be fine, for all I know.

-dave


DAVE GREENBERG
SONOPOD MASTERING
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with??? #509360 02/29/04 04:05 AM
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 426
B
Bob Olhsson Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
B
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally posted by Leifski:
...I was told three years ago that using JAM to burn a CD is a good way of killing all reverb one has used....
If you do gain changes, yes. If you do all of your digital signal processing elsewhere, old Jam was just
fine except for, if I remember correctly, a problem with muting audio during start ID pauses.


Bob's workroom (615) 385-8051
http://hyperback.com
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with??? #509361 02/29/04 04:45 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 169
J
JonnyClueless Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 169
I have done some testing. Burning the same audio file (16bit) on Jam 2.6 and burning on Toast 5.2. Toast clearly degraded the sound, whereas Jam was hardly noticeable. I used a ripped track from an audio CD so as to compare to the oiginal. Toast clearly degraded the sound and Jam I could hardly tell. I don't know if the difference was the ripping process or Jam itself. But I do know I will never use toast to burn an audio CD if I can help it. I guess there is no choice once you go to OS X huh? Has anyone else done any testing?

Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with??? #509362 02/29/04 02:32 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 709
A
adebar Offline
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
A
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 709
I had the same experience with Toast 2.6.
The copied CD sounded a little harder.

Jam does absolutely nothing to the sound and I stress it again, I never do DSP processing in Jam.

Also it is no problem to make live CDs with continuing audio and setting start IDs in between. There is no problem with setting pause to 0 seconds as mentioned before.

Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with??? #509363 02/29/04 04:26 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 27
J
jmusic3 Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 27
I've been using Toast in OSX for several months and have not noticed any problems. What kind of issues have some of you had with the new Toast?

Thx,
J


Brag all you want, but don't get between me and the bloodwine!
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with??? #509364 02/29/04 09:22 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 169
J
JonnyClueless Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 169
I cant speak for OS X, but the issue for me is that Toast burns are much lower quality. Much duller, etc. Burn an audio CD and compare it to the original. I am concerned about making the switch to OS X where Toast is requred to be used with JAM (I think).

Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with??? #509365 02/29/04 09:26 PM
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,242
Loco Offline
Platinum Member
Offline
Platinum Member
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,242
Try burning with toast and ripping it back. check the files. They are the same.

The only sound difference tou get is when you originate from 48K and/or 24bit files. The SRC on Toast is not the best.


"There's no right, there's no wrong. There's only popular opinion" Jeffrey Goines
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with??? #509366 03/02/04 02:24 AM
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 5
Guy Johnson Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 5
Hello, I'm glad to have discovered this Forum . . .

I've used Jam 2.6 for years - it sounds great. Never used anything else!

In fact, when using Toast Audio Extractor 1.1, via a Yamaha SCSI drive, and then burning with Jam, many CD's sound a lot better - bigger, more involving (similar to the difference between a cheap and a very good CD player).

Any ideas why this happens? I found it surprising.

Guy

Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with??? #509367 04/18/04 11:04 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 80
L
Leifski Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
L
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 80
Thanks guys for replying. I am sorry fro dropping out but I have been out of the loop for months due to personal issues and loads of work... I was told years ago by the head tech at a very reputable mastering house in New York that Jam was a problem. I recently did a mastering session and I felt that the reverbs got lost in the process....
I need to do some tests myself. I just find that a plugin or software program can kill the quality of the audio... sometimes its good... sometimes its bad.
Leifsky

Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with??? #509368 04/18/04 03:23 PM
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 485
S
shikawkee Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 485
No problems with Jam here either Leif.

BTW: What the hell have you done with my drummer !!! \:D

Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with??? #509369 04/18/04 06:52 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 161
D
DAS Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
D
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 161
Those of you who are making comparisoins by ripping and then burning are doing apples and orange comparisons. That's two processes. Ripping then burning. And don't go down the line saying ripping cant' change a file. After all, then contention is that Toast is changing the sound.

I've never experienced a problem. But the way I see it, the closest test you can have is of you playback your source directly from your computer thru whatever high quality hardware you have, and then playback your CD dig out thru the same hardware. That way the only difference is the generation going to CD. (assuming you believe that all CD players, when going Dig out sound the same!)

Listening test rule #1 As much as possible, change as little as possible. That way you're sure you're not hearing more than one thing changing.

Rule #2 You must do blind tests. Otherwise your brain will influence you. How many of us have tried turning the EQ knobs, thinking we've changed something...only to find it was the wrong EQ or it was out of the circuit? We heard what we wanted to hear


DAS
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with??? #509370 04/19/04 07:02 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 50
P
PookyNMR Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 50
I heard from a Mastering Engineer that Jam / Toast does not burn 'true' redbook CDs and that to get a true redbook CD for a replication master that one has to use software like WaveLave or Spark. True?


Nathan Rousu
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with??? #509371 04/19/04 10:19 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 709
A
adebar Offline
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
A
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 709
The old Toast (before version 6) didn´t burn red book compatible CD-Rs. Jam as stand alone application ever did.

Don´t know about the Toast/Jam combination in version 6 for OSX.

Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with??? #509372 04/19/04 10:23 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 709
A
adebar Offline
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
A
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 709
Spark burns red book compatible CD-Rs, but it is discontinued. There are not too many afordable applications out there now for burning red book CDs in OSX.
I´d like to see something like WaveLab5 for OSX where you can even burn DVD-A.

Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with??? #509373 04/19/04 10:45 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 50
P
PookyNMR Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally posted by adebar:
Spark burns red book compatible CD-Rs, but it is discontinued. There are not too many afordable applications out there now for burning red book CDs in OSX.
I´d like to see something like WaveLab5 for OSX where you can even burn DVD-A.
Spark is stopping development for anything past 10.3. but if you paln to run Jaguar or Panther for a long while, you'll be fine.

WaveLab 5 for Mac would be an excellent solution. I've lobbied Steinberg for it, but they say that they don't have the resources to do it at this time. I'm sure that wouldn't be the case if everyone paid for the software that they use...

Nathan


Nathan Rousu
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with??? #509374 04/19/04 11:38 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 709
A
adebar Offline
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
A
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 709
Quote:
I'm sure that wouldn't be the case if everyone paid for the software that they use...
Maybe they´d make more money with a Mac version;)

I think Steinberg just wants to serve the PC side first to strengthen their product line in competition with emagic. So we only can hope there will be an OSX version of WaveBurner Pro with similar features like WaveLab.


Moderated by  gm 

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3