I'm with Silversonya in the need for education beyond that. I'm only adding that they not treat a standard like a bastard stepchild. Based on your last sentence it seems like you're with me, Daniel, as far as plants acceptance goes. I don't think we should adopt Nero or Toast's competing disc image formats for the sake of people who don't offer the "real deal", especially since the needs of those customers are being well-met by every plant I'm aware of (who doesn't take a CD-R, even Track-At-Once these days?). I don't think I'd trust a plant that discouraged or didn't accept DDP with a 10,000pc order, even if I was delivering a PMCD master.įrom that perspective, miseducating clients, it's a legitimate issue. the bigger the run, the more useful it is to know how your vendor stacks up. This distinction is really important when working with runs over 1000 units.
Need ddp master pro#
The ability to deliver and use either based on CLIENT needs is what separates pro mastering and replication from DIY. It erases a useful line for clients between mastering products - DDP presumes standards-based file exchange, while CD-R/PMCD relies on variable media-based atom exchanges.
Need ddp master software#
Delegitimizing the only legitimate data-based standard for replication, to legitimize cheap software is counterproductive. Never has, but some will always try to make that claim. From a mastering engineers perspective, the software issue Daniel raises doesn't really matter if you're doing something you bill as "mastering" you should be using tools that deliver verifiable parts as a matter of honesty in advertising - CD burning ≠ mastering. Since there's unlikely to be a common red book disc image that is accepted on all platforms, DDP is what we have. It's supported by all legitimate plants, and isn't supposed to differ in implementation (fact is it does, esp where hacks like CD Text are introduced). DDP provides a flat, common format, which can be zipped and checksummed for transport.
At worst, your file exchange flops and you fedex a master. At best, the plant will burn a disc and feed that to the Eclipse (they may not tell you this requirement, and just do it behind the scenes). There are at least 2 different and incompatible consumer "disc image" formats for a Red Book image, neither of which is directly supported by LBRs at plants. The need for DDP is apparent when you try to exchange a completed project with a remote client via FTP.
Where we differ is on whether a secure, integrated, data-based (as opposed to media-based) industry standard is desirable, and to what extent. The question is: Should the replication market align standards with the practices/needs of the lowest common denominator client? I bet we'd all agree, including replicators, that meeting those low-end needs is a good thing, if not an economic necessity. I'm not sure it matters whether Roxio Toast or iTunes or even slightly better tools, like Sound Forge can deliver a DDP or not. But when replicators suggest there's something wrong with it, or it's not preferred, it's gone a bit too far - they're miseducating clients, possibly to the detriment of their projects. If you're doing short runs (1000 or less) and dropping off a CD now and then, it's not a big deal.
Need ddp master professional#
I think SilverSonya's point focuses on professional mastering clients and practitioners.
0 kommentar(er)
