#509352 - 02/26/04 06:49 AM
JAM: Best/Worst to burn with???
|
Leifski
Senior Member
Registered: 12/11/02
Posts: 80
Loc: Oslo Norway
|
Offline
|
|
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
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#509353 - 02/26/04 08:01 AM
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with???
|
Ruairi O'Flaherty
Senior Member
Registered: 01/04/02
Posts: 343
Loc: IRELAND
|
|
Offline
|
|
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
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#509354 - 02/26/04 11:49 AM
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with???
|
DAS
Senior Member
Registered: 09/15/03
Posts: 161
Loc: Nashville
|
|
Offline
|
|
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
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#509355 - 02/26/04 11:53 AM
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with???
|
Ruairi O'Flaherty
Senior Member
Registered: 01/04/02
Posts: 343
Loc: IRELAND
|
|
Offline
|
|
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
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#509356 - 02/26/04 01:13 PM
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with???
|
where02190
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 11/06/01
Posts: 5402
Loc: Weymouth, Ma. USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
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.
_________________________
Hope this is helpful. NP Recording Studios Analog approach to digital recording.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#509357 - 02/26/04 01:23 PM
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with???
|
kk@jamsync.com
Gold Member
Registered: 10/16/00
Posts: 649
Loc: ,,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
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.
_________________________
KK Proffitt Chief Audio Engineer, JamSync, Nashville JamSync
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#509358 - 02/26/04 06:11 PM
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with???
|
adebar
Gold Member
Registered: 07/17/01
Posts: 709
Loc: Wiesbaden, GERMANY
|
|
Offline
|
|
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 donīt use any processing in Jam like wordlenght reduction or src.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#509359 - 02/28/04 09:32 AM
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with???
|
dave-G
Gold Member
Registered: 04/07/01
Posts: 588
Loc: FL and CA Bay Areas
|
|
Offline
|
|
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
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#509360 - 02/28/04 11:05 PM
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with???
|
Bob Olhsson
Senior Member
Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 426
Loc: Nashville,TN, USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
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....
fine except for, if I remember correctly, a problem with muting audio during start ID pauses.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#509361 - 02/28/04 11:45 PM
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with???
|
JonnyClueless
Senior Member
Registered: 10/28/01
Posts: 169
Loc: Linwood,NJ,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
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?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#509362 - 02/29/04 09:32 AM
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with???
|
adebar
Gold Member
Registered: 07/17/01
Posts: 709
Loc: Wiesbaden, GERMANY
|
|
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#509363 - 02/29/04 11:26 AM
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with???
|
jmusic3
Member
Registered: 03/19/03
Posts: 27
Loc: VA
|
|
Offline
|
|
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!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#509364 - 02/29/04 04:22 PM
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with???
|
JonnyClueless
Senior Member
Registered: 10/28/01
Posts: 169
Loc: Linwood,NJ,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
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).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#509365 - 02/29/04 04:26 PM
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with???
|
Loco
Platinum Member
Registered: 08/11/00
Posts: 1242
Loc: Miami Beach,FL,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
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
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#509366 - 03/01/04 09:24 PM
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with???
|
Guy Johnson
Member
Registered: 03/01/04
Posts: 5
Loc: Wales
|
|
Offline
|
|
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
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#509367 - 04/18/04 07:04 AM
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with???
|
Leifski
Senior Member
Registered: 12/11/02
Posts: 80
Loc: Oslo Norway
|
|
Offline
|
|
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
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#509368 - 04/18/04 11:23 AM
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with???
|
shikawkee
Senior Member
Registered: 05/31/01
Posts: 485
Loc: Nashville, TN
|
|
Offline
|
|
No problems with Jam here either Leif.
BTW: What the hell have you done with my drummer !!! 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#509369 - 04/18/04 02:52 PM
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with???
|
DAS
Senior Member
Registered: 09/15/03
Posts: 161
Loc: Nashville
|
|
Offline
|
|
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
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#509370 - 04/19/04 03:02 PM
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with???
|
PookyNMR
Senior Member
Registered: 01/01/04
Posts: 43
Loc: Edmonton, AB, Canada
|
|
Offline
|
|
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
HV Studio
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#509371 - 04/19/04 06:19 PM
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with???
|
adebar
Gold Member
Registered: 07/17/01
Posts: 709
Loc: Wiesbaden, GERMANY
|
|
Offline
|
|
The old Toast (before version 6) didnīt burn red book compatible CD-Rs. Jam as stand alone application ever did.
Donīt know about the Toast/Jam combination in version 6 for OSX.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#509372 - 04/19/04 06:23 PM
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with???
|
adebar
Gold Member
Registered: 07/17/01
Posts: 709
Loc: Wiesbaden, GERMANY
|
|
Offline
|
|
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.
Iīd like to see something like WaveLab5 for OSX where you can even burn DVD-A.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#509373 - 04/19/04 06:45 PM
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with???
|
PookyNMR
Senior Member
Registered: 01/01/04
Posts: 43
Loc: Edmonton, AB, Canada
|
|
Offline
|
|
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.
Iīd like to see something like WaveLab5 for OSX where you can even burn DVD-A.
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
HV Studio
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#509374 - 04/19/04 07:38 PM
Re: JAM: Best/Worst to burn with???
|
adebar
Gold Member
Registered: 07/17/01
Posts: 709
Loc: Wiesbaden, GERMANY
|
|
Offline
|
|
I'm sure that wouldn't be the case if everyone paid for the software that they use...
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.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
